THe  person  ofchrist 
aRD  HIS  PReseoce  m 

THe  LORD'S  SUPPeR 


jGrnmim  zii??r7?eRr??^n 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON.   N.  J. 

Presented  by 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST 

AND  HIS  PRESENCE  IN 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER 


BY 


JEREMIAH  ZIMMERMAN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


^  . 


l-V.   t^  V-. 


r.  .\-  /  o 


r-  ~.  *   '  «■    r 


I^ARTl^VQUTAri^ 


BOSTON 

RICHARD    G.   BADGER 

THE    GORHAM    PRESS 


COPYEIGHT,  I919,  BY  RiCHAKD   G.  BADGER 


All  Rights'  Reserved 


Made  in  the  United  States  of  America 


The  Gorham  Press,  Boston,  U.  S.  A. 


TO  ALL  WHO  COMMUNE 
WITH 

CHRIST   JESUS 

IN  THE 

SACRAMENT   OF  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER 


PREFACE 

All  Christian  believers  have  a  common-central 
meeting  place  in  Christ  even  though  they  may 
refuse  to  meet  with  one  another  at  the  Lord's 
Table.  In  Christ  the  Church-universal  meets, 
whatever  the  name,  nationality  or  social  stand- 
ing, whether  male  or  female,  bond  or  free,  all  are 
one  in  Christ  Jesus.  They  all  acknowledge  Him 
as  their  Lord  and  Master,  and  their  only  Saviour. 
Him  they  worship  as  the  Son  of  God  and  one 
with  the  Father.  To  Him  they  make  confession 
of  their  sins  in  true  penitence,  trusting  Him  for 
forgiveness  and  salvation.  To  them  the  creed  of 
the  primitive  Church  remains,  even  as  Christ  ever 
remains  the  same.  All  seek  His  peace  and  guid- 
ance, and  would  abide  in  Him. 

There  is  one  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  spite  of 
dissensions  and  all  the  imperfections  of  the  mem- 
bers who  compose  it,  because  of  their  mystical  and 
vital  union  with  Christ.  Hence  the  unity  of  the 
Church;  for  Christ  said:  "They  shall  become  one 
flock,  one  shepherd";  and  He  prayed,  "that  they 
all  may  be  one;  even  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me, 
and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us." 


6  PREFACE 

This  unity  of  the  one  Church  may  be  realized  by 
all  believers  without  an  organic  union  and  central- 
ization of  absolute  power — with  autocratic  author- 
ity— if  they  "keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
bond  of  peace.  There  is  one  body,  one  Spirit, 
even  as  also  ye  were  called  in  one  hope  of  your 
calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  over  all,  and  in 
all."  "We  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ;" 
"for  ye  all  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  hence 
there  is  one  Holy  Catholic  Church  because  of  the 
intimate  and  vital  union  of  all  its  members  with 
Christ,  the  body  and  head  of  the  Church. 

There  is  no  place  where  we  have  Christ  so 
clearly  set  before  us  as  an  objective  reality  as  in 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  He  is 
personally  identified  with  it.  St.  Paul  discerned 
the  Person  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Communion 
when  in  positive  language  he  declared:  "The  cup 
of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ?"  Christ  Jesus  Himself  says  to  every 
communicant  who  partakes  of  the  sacramental 
Bread  and  Wine:  "Take  eat;  this  is  my  body.  .  .  . 
This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  poured 
out  for  many."  The  Church  accepts  these  words 
without  revision,  and  believes  them,  though  some 
differ  in  their  understanding  and  interpretation  as 


PREFACE  7 

to  the  manner  of  Christ's  Presence,  for  all  must 
desire  their  Saviour's  Presence  and  to  meet  Him 
in  the  Holy  Communion  that  they  may  truly  com- 
mune with  Him;  for  we  cannot  doubt  nor  deny 
the  reality  of  His  Presence,  nor  wish  that  He 
should  not  be  present  but  absent.  He  said: 
"Abide  in  me  and  I  will  abide  in  you." 

The  author  was  appointed  in  January  191 8  to 
deliver  at  Gettysburg  the  Holman  Lecture  for 
that  year  on  Article  Tenth  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. Later,  he  was  urged  to  publish  the  same 
with  important  additions  in  book  form.  The  re- 
sult of  the  study  is  this  volume  which  is  sent 
forth  with  the  earnest  prayer  and  hope  that  it 
may  tend  to  increase  our  faith  in  the  historical 
incarnation  of  the  Divine  One  in  Christ;  that 
our  fellowship  with  the  personal  Christ  may  be- 
come more  real  by  discerning  His  Presence 
in  the  Lord's  Supper;  that  in  this  Holy  Com- 
munion there  may  be  developed  and  realized  the 
spirit  of  genuine  love  for  the  Church  universal;  so 
that  whilst  we  may  not  all  be  able  to  think  and 
express  ourselves  exactly  alike, — though  holding 
fast  to  the  Divine  Christ,  we  may  all  be  able  to 
love  one  another,  even  as  He  hath  loved  us,  and 
as  He  hath  enjoined  and  commanded  us  to  Love 
one  another.  May  we  ever  realize  this  spirit  of 
love  for  all  the  brethren,  in  our  oneness  in  Him 
our  common  Lord  and  Saviour,  so  that  this  central 


8  PREFACE 

Rite  of  worship  in  the  Christian  Church  may  no 
longer  be  the  storm  center  of  bitter  controversy, 
misrepresentation  and  alienation,  but  a  precious 
and  real  Eucharist  and  communion  of  all  Christian 
believers  with  the  Saviour-Christ,  and  with  the 
Church-universal. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.   The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper    .     .       13 
II.  The  Passover 80 

III.  The  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the 

Lord's  Supper iii 

IV.  Consensus   of  Opinion  Among  Theolo- 

gians      176 

V.   The  Analogy  of  Faith 208 

VI.   Christ's    Glorified    Body    in   the    Eu- 
charist       254 

VII.   Side   Lights   from   Comparative    Reli  - 

gions 276 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  AND  HIS 
PRESENCE  IN  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  AND 

HIS  PRESENCE  IN  THE 

LORD'S  SUPPER 


THE   CHRIST   OF   THE    LORD  S    SUPPER 

IN  the  study  and  discussion  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  logical  method 
of  approach  must  be  by  way  of  the  Person  of 
Christ.  This  supreme  subject  must  precede  the 
consideration  of  the  words  themselves  in  the  In- 
stitution. Who  was  He  who  uttered  the  words? 
This  we  must  determine  and  know  before  we  can 
interpret  the  words  themselves. 

Their  actual  content  is  wholly  dependent  upon 
the  character  of  Him  who  spoke  those  startling 
words,  for  they  would  be  utterly  vain  and  mean- 
ingless if  Jesus  were  no  more  than  one  of  the 
Rabbis,  and  they  would  have  no  significance  for  us. 

The  Person  of  Christ  is  fundamental  in  the  un- 
derstanding and  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presence  of  the  Person  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 

13 


14  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Supper.  It  Includes  the  supreme  question  that  the 
Divine  Lord  and  Master  asked  the  Pharisees: 
"What  think  ye  of  the  Christ?  Whose  Son  Is 
He?"  The  correct  answer  will  furnish  our  de- 
fense for  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.  If  he 
were  only  the  son  of  Mary,  then  our  view  would 
be  as  utterly  Impossible  as  It  Is  to  the  Socinlan 
or  to  the  unbeliever;  but  If  Christ  was  the  Son  of 
God  as  He  claimed  to  be,  and  as  His  disciples 
believed  him  to  be,  then  our  doctrine  is  not  only 
possible,  but  it  Is  not  unreasonable.  However 
great  the  mystery  may  be  to  us,  it  is  not  too  great 
for  the  Godhead.  "Great  is  the  mystery  of  god- 
liness; He  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh." 

It  surpasses  human  comprehension,  but  we  can 
believe  God  and  obey  by  putting  ourselves  in  right 
mental  attitude  of  faith,  love  and  purpose,  just  as 
the  unlearned  child  and  unscientific  man  take  the 
receiver  of  the  telephone  and  talk  to  unseen 
friends,  or  mount  the  electric  car  believing  that 
they  shall  reach  their  destination,  though  they  see 
not  nor  fully  understand  the  hidden  forces  that 
make  these  things  possible.  Neither  need  we  see 
God  and  understand  all  His  mysterious  ways.  In 
order  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  His  divine  power 
and  love. 

In  order  to  approach  aright  the  contemplation 
of  the  actual  purport  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         15 

the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  it,  we  must  go  back 
through  the  centuries  and  study  the  Christ  of  his- 
tory in  the  light  of  His  own  age,  and  get  the  im- 
pression that  He  made  upon  His  contemporaries. 
What  did  they  think  of  the  Christ,  and  how  deep 
and  lasting  was  the  impression  that  He  made  upon 
those  who  believed  in  Him?  They  are  His  wit- 
nesses, and  there  are  not  a  few.  Their  attach- 
ment was  no  mere  momentary  enthusiasm,  but 
stood  the  test  of  great  personal  self-sacrifice 
through  years  of  devoted  service,  and  they  pre- 
ferred to  die  rather  than  deny  their  Lord  and 
Master. 

In  fact  when  He  had  withdrawn  His  visible 
presence,  they  enjoyed  the  overmastering  convic- 
tion that  He  was  ever  with  them  even  as  He  had 
promised  them  that  He  would  be.  He  was  their 
daily  peace,  their  hope,  inspiration  and  power. 
It  was  the  peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  under- 
standing that  guarded  their  hearts  and  thoughts 
in  Christ  Jesus.  They  had  the  realizing  sense  of 
His  presence,  for  Jesus  meant  just  what  He  said 
in  those  precious  words: — "Abide  in  me,  and  I 
will  abide  in  you."  He  meant  what  you  may  un- 
derstand by  the  mystical  union  with  Him,  but  do 
not  lose  sight  of  Him  in  your  mystical  terminol- 
ogy, for  Christ  spoke  plainly  that  He  would  al- 
ways sustain  an  intimate  personal  and  vital  re- 


1 6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

latlon  with  each  one  of  His  followers.  He  would 
not  withdraw  from  them,  but  would  remain  in 
loving  and  potent  touch  with  them — inspiring  and 
sustaining  them. 

The  Church  would  have  perished  centuries  ago 
because  of  the  persecutions  from  without,  and  the 
unfaithful  misguided  ones  from  within.  When 
even  the  chief  heads  of  the  Church  became  cor- 
rupt and  lost  sight  of  the  spirit  and  teachings  of 
Christ,  then  the  Lord  and  Master  still  kept  His 
abiding  presence  in  the  souls  of  the  faithful  whom 
He  prepared  and  inspired  to-  reform  the  evils  in 
the  Church,  and  to  restore  God's  Word  to  the 
people  as  the  one  Divine  authority  for  faith  and 
practice. 

What  made  the  faithful  leaders  in  the  Church 
from  Apostolic  times  to  the  days  of  Luther  so 
bold  and  invincible  was  the  fact  that  they  realized 
that  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church — ^the  ever 
living  Christ  was  living  in  them,  and  with  this  con- 
sciousness they  were  mighty.  Listen  to  that  in- 
domitable Apostle  Paul  who  once  verily  believed 
that  he  did  God's  service  by  persecuting  the  Chris- 
tians, but  who  by  becoming  conscious  by  irresist- 
ible proof  that  Christ  was  God,  was  ready  to  en- 
dure all  things  for  His  sake — even  rejoicing  that 
he  should  be  accounted  worthy  to  suffer  in  the 
name  of  Christ.    Hear  his  confessions: — "I  have 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         17 

been  crucified  with  Christ;  and  it  is  no  longer  I 
that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  That  clear 
and  unshaken  conviction  alone  can  explain  the 
life  of  St.  Paul.  He  knew  the  Christ  he  trusted, 
and  he  could  do  all  things  through  His  strength. 
It  is  impossible  to  account  for  the  remarkable 
influence  that  Christ  exerted  over  the  Apostles 
and  the  Church  universal,  unless  we  see  in  Him 
the  God-man.  In  fact  it  would  be  difficult  for  us 
to  believe  some  of  the  things  attributed  to  Jesus, 
if  we  did  not  believe  His  own  claim  of  oneness 
with  God  the  Father ;  but  in  the  light  of  this  truth 
all  is  reasonable,  and  the  difficulties  vanish  as 
they  did  with  the  Apostles. 

Read  the  historical  document  known  as  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  you  will  see  that  Christ 
alone  was  the  Creed  of  the  early  Church.  Listen 
to  Peter  as  he  declares  to  the  rulers  and  elders 
that  it  was  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Naz- 
areth whom  ye  crucified,  whom  God  raised  from 
the  dead"  that  the  Apostles  received  their  power. 
"And  in  none  other  is  there  salvation:  for  neither 
is  there  any  other  name  under  heaven,  that  is 
given  among  men,  wherein  we  must  be  saved." 
These  are  weighty  words  of  no  uncertain  sound, 
and  they  tell  plainly  what  the  early  Church  thought 
of  Christ  Jesus. 

This  subject  takes  us  back  to  the  Christ  who 


1 8  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

once  sojourned  among  men  as  the  transcendent 
Teacher  of  all  history — for  He  was  pre-eminently 
a  teacher,  the  Rabbi.  He  was  the  unique  teacher 
of  His  times  because  He  spoke  as  one  having  au- 
thority and  not  as  the  scribes.  But  He  was  the 
unique  teacher  of  all  times,  because  His  teaching 
was  inseparable  from  Himself.  You  cannot  read 
the  Gospels  without  the  Christ.  Eliminate  the 
historic  Christ  from  them,  and  they  would  be 
meaningless.  This  is  not  true  of  the  great  his- 
torians, poets,  philosophers  and  even  founders  of 
world  religions,  like  Buddha,  We  can  read  their 
works  without  even  thinking  of  the  authors,  but 
that  is  impossible  in  the  case  of  the  Founder  of 
Christianity.  You  cannot  separate  Jesus  from 
the  New  Testament  nor  from  the  faith  of  the 
Church  through  the  Christian  centuries.  As  an 
experiment,  take  the  four  Gospels  and  eliminate 
the  names,  and  every  passage  that  has  any  refer- 
ence whatever  to  the  Christ  of  history,  and  what 
would  remain?  Not  the  Gospels.  Their  rich 
content  and  meaning  would  be  gone,  for  they 
would  no  longer  contain  the  good  news  from  God. 
The  precious  promises  would  be  gone  and  every 
hope  canceled;  for  He  who  gave  the  promises 
and  assurances  of  hope  would  be  non-existent  In 
the  transaction,  and  all  the  promises  without  Him 
would  be  as  worthless  as  so  many  checks  that  bore 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         19 

no  signature  of  a  responsible  endorser  who  could 
and  would  pay  the  amount  promised. 

When  we  come  to  the  study  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  we  find  that  it  is  pre-eminently 
true  that  the  words  are  inseparable  from  Christ 
Himself.  The  entire  doctrine  is  taken  up  with 
Him  in  view,  and  without  Him  this  ordinance 
would  be  non-existent.  The  very  first  words  of 
Christ  given  in  all  four  of  the  Scriptural  accounts, 
show  how  He  identifies  this  Sacrament  with  Him- 
self: — "This  is  my  body ." 

A  teacher  in  a  liberal  church  once  said  to  me, 
as  an  apology  for  his  position:  "It  makes  little 
difference  what  we  think  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ  and  His  divine  nature,  the  all-important 
matter  for  us  is  to  study  His  teachings."  This 
he  might  truly  say  of  some  philosopher  and  his 
writings,  but  with  respect  to  the  Gospels  every- 
thing depends  upon  the  character  of  the  teacher, 
who  and  what  he  was  and  what  he  claimed  to  be 
— whether  He  was  merely  the  son  of  Mary,  or 
whether  He  was  also  the  Son  of  God.  That  is 
of  supreme  importance,  for  the  greatest  disclos- 
ures and  most  precious  promises  are  worthless 
unless  He  who  declared  them  is  the  Divine  Sa- 
viour. Of  what  avail  is  a  note  with  a  "promise 
to  pay"  when  given  by  a  fraudulent  maker? 

With  reference  to  the  sayings  of  Christ,  every- 


20  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

thing  depends  upon  who  He  was.  You  cannot 
match  the  rich  treasures  embodied  in  His  recorded 
sayings — for  example,  in  chapters  14  and  15  of 
St.  John's  Gospel — but  they  would  become  mean- 
ingless if  Jesus  be  not  the  Christ — the  God-man 
He  claimed  to  be. 

The  Word  of  God  teaches  us  that  Christ  was 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment shows  that  there  is  "no  contact  with  God 
except  in  Christ."  Hence  in  that  God  conscious- 
ness Christ  declared:  "He  that  hath  seen  me 
hath  seen  the  Father,  for  the  Father  and  I  are 
One."  With  the  Apostle  Paul  Luther  gave  Christ 
the  preeminence  in  all  things,  and  exalted  Him  to 
the  highest  place:  "Nos  nihil  sumus;  Christus 
solus  est  omnia."  Prof.  Lindsay  was  deeply  im- 
pressed by  the  conception  of  the  Majesty  of 
Christ,  and  he  wrote :  "With  the  Reformers, 
the  historical  life  of  Jesus  is  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance, far  exceeding  all  metaphysical  disserta- 
tions upon  the  nature  of  a  God-man.  ...  In 
Jesus  we  see  God  appearing  in  history  and  ad- 
dressing man.  Hence  the  Person  of  Christ  was 
something  more  than  a  mere  doctrine  for  them — 
an  intellectual  something  outside  us.  It  must  be 
the  heart  of  that  blessed  experience  which  is  called 
Justification  by  Faith."  Luther,  as  Harnack 
says,  in  his  relation  to  God,  only  thought  of  God 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         21 

at  all  as  he  knew  Him  In  Christ.  Beyond  them 
there  Is  the  unknown  God  of  philosophical  pagan- 
Ism,  etc.,  whom  men  ignorantly  worship.  No  one 
can  really  know  God  save  through  the  Christ  of 
history.  Hence,  with  Luther,  Christ  fills  the  whole 
sphere  of  God:  'He  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
seen  the  Father,'  and  conversely,  He  that  hath  not 
seen  me  hath  not  seen  the  Father.  The  history 
of  Jesus  Christ  Is  for  Luther  the  revealer,  and  the 
only  revealer  of  the  Father."  Says  Lindsay: 
"The  early  Christians  had  said  of  Jesus  that  he 
must  be  conceived  of  as  belonging  to  the  sphere 
of  God.  The  Reformers  (Luther  added,  and 
that  He  fills  the  whole  sphere  of  God,  so  that 
there  Is  room  for  no  other  vision  of  God  than 
that  which  Christ  gives  us.  This  master-thought 
of  Reformation  theology  simplified  Christian 
doctrine  In  a  wonderful  way."  To-day  we  see 
God  in  Christ,  for  they  are  One.  We  and  all 
the  world  have  a  direct  approach  to  Him  who 
said:  "Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labor  and  are 
heavy  laden  and  I  will  give  you  rest, — and  ye 
shall  find  rest  to  your  soul."  That  includes  us, 
and  It  is  this  personal  Christ, — the  burden  bearer 
that  we  all  need,  and  who  is  with  us  in  person  in 
the  Holy  Communion. 

Christ    enjoyed    the    consciousness    of   oneness 
with  the  Father,  for  God  dwelt  incarnate  in  Him 


22  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

who  was  the  express  image  of  His  Father's  Per- 
son. Our  nearest  and  clearest  view  of  God  our 
heavenly  Father  is  in  Christ,  for  in  Christ  we 
have  the  self-manifestation  of  God,  "reconciling 
the  world  unto  himself." 

We  need  at  times  to  go  back  through  the  cen- 
turies to  Palestine,  and  become  eyewitnesses  with 
the  contemporaries  of  Christ  Jesus.  We  must 
look  upon  His  disciples  as  they  walked  and  talked 
with  their  Lord  and  Master,  and  saw  the  wonder- 
ful signs  that  He  gave  in  evidence  of  His  divine 
mission  that  convinced  them  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah, the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
We  must  get  their  point  of  view  as  they  saw  and 
heard,  and  observed  His  influence  over  themselves 
as  well  as  the  people.  What  impression  did  He 
make  upon  their  minds,  and  what  influence  did 
He  exert  upon  their  lives?  What  did  they  think 
of  Christ?  They  had  abundant  opportunity  to 
make  every  test  and  to  form  opinions  at  first  hand 
that  are  worthy  of  our  serious  consideration.  They 
have  given  us  their  testimony  in  the  records  of 
the  Four  Gospels,  which  are  likewise  the  testimony 
that  Christ  gives  us  of  Himself.  In  addition  we 
have  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  which  are  the  united 
testimony  of  the  first  Christian  community.  These, 
as  Harnack  states,  "enable  us  to  gather  what  was 
the  prevailing  impression  made  by  His  personal- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         23 

ity,  and  in  what  sense  His  disciples  understood 
His  words  and  the  testimony  which  He  gave  of 
Himself." 

These  Christian  records  are  well  authenticated 
as  containing  reliable  information,  and  the  most 
searching  historical  criticism  has  shown  them  to 
be  worthy  of  our  acceptance.  The  foundations 
for  our  Christian  faith  have  not  escaped  the  most 
violent  attacks  from  hostile  camps  of  unsympa- 
thetic critics  who  allowed  no  statement  to  go  un- 
challenged, and  yet  the  words  of  Christ  remain 
invincible.  No  worthy  substitute  has  been  of- 
fered to  meet  the  pressing  needs  of  the  human 
soul  even  in  this  intellectual  age  of  advanced  the- 
ories in  social  and  scientific  development.  The 
words  of  Holy  Writ  ever  remain  true:  "O  thou 
that  hearest  prayer,  unto  thee  shall  all  flesh 
come."  Christ  is  no  less  real,  personal,  potent 
and  precious,  for  He  ever  continues  the  same, 
and  exerts  His  influence  over  us.  Men  realize 
His  presence  and  power.  The  Church  has  en- 
countered opposition  from  the  combined  forces  of 
unrighteousness  in  the  many  forms  of  selfish  greed, 
intemperance,  vice,  lust  for  possession,  power  and 
gold,  and  yet  Christianity  has  triumphed,  and  the 
Church  in  spite  of  all  the  imperfections  of  its 
members,  and  the  opposition  of  worldly  men  has 
realized  what  Christ  promised,  that  "He  that  is 


24  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

for  us  is  mightier  than  they  that  are  against  us." 
We  can  still  say  with  Paul:  "If  God  be  for  us 
who  can  be  against  us?" 

If  we  would  get  the  impression  that  Jesus  made 
upon  His  followers  let  us  stand  by  and  listen  to 
His  reply  to  the  messengers  that  John  the  Bap- 
tist sent  to  Him  with  the  question:  "Art  thou 
He  that  should  come  or  look  we  for  another?" 
Christ  answered  with  signs  that  attested  to  His 
Messiahship,  and  these  we  should  contemplate  as 
He  then  dismisses  the  messengers  with  the  sig- 
nificant words:  "Go  and  tell  John  the  things 
which  ye  have  seen  and  heard;  the  blind  receive 
their  sight,  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed, 
and  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  the 
poor  have  good  tidings  preached  to  them.  And 
blessed  is  he,  whosoever  shall  find  no  occasion  of 
stumbling  in  me."  The  historical  records  for  the 
validity  of  Christ's  words  and  claims,  and  power 
over  the  thoughts  and  lives  of  men  have  been 
assailed  at  times,  but  they  are  firm  as  the  eternal 
hills. 

There  are  fundamental  facts  that  have  been 
estabhshed  as  unquestioned  in  the  history  of 
Christianity,  and  upon  which  the  faith  of  the 
Church  rests,  as  upon  an  impregnable  founda- 
tion.   There  are  likewise  certain  facts  in  this  his- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         25 

tory  that  the  doubters  must  account  for  before 
they  can  dismiss  the  question:  "What  think  ye 
of  Christ?"  There  is  no  escape  by  assuming  in- 
difference. Every  man  must  either  accept  Christ 
or  reject  Him,  but  the  latter  course  involves  seri- 
ous consequences  that  cannot  be  escaped.  Let  us 
briefly  consider  some  of  the  plain  outstanding 
facts  that  must  be  accounted  for  in  any  rational 
study  of  the  Person  of  Christ  in  history.  What 
led  the  first  disciples  to  believe  on  Jesus,  and  to 
follow  Him  as  their  Lord  and  Master?  They 
were  intimately  associated  with  Him  for  three 
years,  and  of  all  men  they  knew  Him  best.  We 
must  stand  with  them,  and  see  and  hear  the  Christ, 
for  He  is  the  central  fact  in  the  Christian  religion, 
and  Christianity  is  not  only  inseparable  from  Him, 
but  is  in  essence  adherence  to  the  Person  of  Christ. 
The  Gospel  is  emphatically  the  Gospel  of  Good 
news  of  Christ,  and  inseparable  from  Him,  for 
you  cannot  read  the  Gospels  without  Christ,  for 
their  very  essence  consists  in  the  character  of  His 
Person.  Christianity  is  not  founded  upon  mere 
faith,  as  the  indefinite  idea  of  some  appears 
to  be,  but  it  is  founded  upon  Christ  and  our 
faith  in  Him.  It  is  the  personal  Christ  who  is 
the  hope  of  the  world  to-day,  and  every  Church 
claims  Him,   and  trusts  Him,  and  seeks  to  fol- 


26  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

low  Him.  His  guidance  they  seek,  Him  they  wor- 
ship, to  Him  they  pray,  and  to  this  Almighty  One 
we  commit  ourselves  for  time  and  eternity. 

But  what  led  the  disciples  to  continue  steadfast 
in  their  selfsacrificing  devotion  to  Jesus  after  He 
had  suffered  that  ignominious  death  upon  the 
cross?  That  was  a  disgraceful  end,  and  all  their 
hopes  seemed  crushed  and  buried  with  His  body 
in  the  tomb.  What  brought  about  the  sudden  and 
startling  change  that  made  the  disciples  more  de- 
voted than  ever,  and  invested  them  with  an  in- 
vincible faith  in  Christ  as  the  Divine  One?  Never 
again  did  Peter  quail  before  the  face  of  his  ac- 
cuser and  deny  his  Lord  and  Master.  Never 
again  was  he  afraid  to  acknowledge  that  he  was 
a  follower  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  what 
caused  this  astounding  change?  There  must  have 
been  a  sufficient  reason  since  every  effect  must 
have  a  cause.  Go  back  with  me  to  the  historical 
records  and  get  the  personal  testimony  of  the 
disciples  thmselves.  We  will  let  them  speak  for 
themselves.  From  them  we  learn  that  this  change 
came  about  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from 
the  dead.  That  evening  the  disciples  were  as- 
sembled in  a  room  with  closed  doors  when  "Jesus 
came  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them, 
Peace  be  unto  you.  And  when  He  had  said  this  He 
showed  them  His  hands  and  His  side.    The  dis- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         27 

ciples  therefore  were  glad,  when  they  saw  the 
Lord."  They  bore  witness  to  that  fact  when  they 
testified,  "We  have  seen  the  Lord."  Doubting 
Thomas  could  no  longer  doubt,  but  overwhelmed 
with  the  Irresistible  objective  evidence  that  the 
risen  Christ  stood  before  him,  Thomas  answered 
and  said  unto  Him  :    "My  Lord  and  my  God." 

Had  Jesus  not  risen  from  the  dead  as  He  had 
declared  on  various  occasions  that  He  would,  then 
the  disciples  would  have  dispersed  to  their  homes 
— with  shame  and  abandoned  hopes  In  Jesus,  and 
never  would  they  have  preached  Him  as  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world.  Then  the  Gospels  would  not 
have  been  written,  and  John  would  not  have  added 
the  statement:  "Many  other  signs  therefore  did 
Jesus  In  the  presence  of  the  disciples,  which  are 
not  written  In  this  book:  but  these  are  written, 
that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  Is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life 
In  His  name."  Had  Jesus  not  confirmed  by  incon- 
trovertible proof  that  He  had  risen  from  the 
dead  the  disciples  would  never  have  entrusted 
themselves  to  a  crucified  and  dead  Jesus,  and  there 
would  hav^e  been  no  organized  Church  and  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  Supper, 

After  His  resurrection  He  sustained  and  com- 
forted His  disciples  by  the  consciousness  of  His 
presence.     He  had  said  to  them:     "Abide  in  me 


28  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

and  I  will  abide  In  you."  He  kept  that  precious 
promise,  and  they  realized  Its  fulfilment,  and  the 
power  of  His  resurrection,  and  in  that  power  they 
became  invincible,  for  they  were  not  left  to  their 
own  strength,  but  Christ  was  in  them  and  for 
them.  Here  is  a  remarkable  outstanding  fact  from 
the  day  He  ascended  from  the  Mount  of  Olives 
into  heaven.  Naturally  that  separation  would 
have  partaken  of  the  character  of  the  sorrow  of 
the  bereaved  when  parting  from  a  loved  one,  but 
there  was  nothing  funereal  about  it  as  the  his- 
torical record  informs  us:  "And  it  came  to  pass, 
while  He  blessed  them.  He  parted  from  them,  and 
was  carried  up  into  heaven.  And  they  worshipped 
Him,  and  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy: 
and  were  continually  In  the  temple,  blessing  God." 
We  can  only  account  for  this  unique  joy  in  the 
fact  of  the  presence  of  the  Christ,  and  that  He 
had  them  realize  what  He  had  promised  them: 
"I  would  that  my  joy  might  be  In  you  and  that 
your  joy  may  be  made  full,"  "and  your  joy  no 
one  taketh  away  from  you." 

My  purpose  Is  to  show  what  Is  of  the  greatest 
Importance  In  considering  the  Person  of  the 
Christ  of  history,  for  this  is  fundamental  in  our 
study  of  the  character  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  His 
own  disciples  who  knew  Him  best  believed  Him 
to  be  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God.     They  may 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         29 

have  been  slow  to  believe  at  times  and  faltered, 
but  after  the  resurrection  they  saw  clearly  an^ 
understood  what  had  been  difficult  to  comprehend. 
Then  instead  of  becoming  weak  in  the  faith  they 
became  mighty,  for  they  saw  that  Christ  had  not 
merely  revealed  God  to  them,  but  He  had  re- 
vealed Himself  as  God  to  them.  Glover,  the 
scholar  and  historic  critic,  asks  the  pregnant  ques- 
tion: "How  came  the  Christian  community, 
within  one  generation  of  Calvary,  to  the  conviction 
that  the  historic  Jesus,  whom  they  had  known, 
with  whom  they  had  talked  and  traveled — a  cruci- 
fied provincial,  and  one  of  many  such — was  to 
sit  upon  the  Judgment  seat  of  the  universe?  The 
cross  and  the  throne  were  certainly  incompatible 
ideas;  and  yet  they  are  linked  deliberately — and 
for  the  sake  of  a  man  whom  they  had  passed  on 
the  street.  What  was  the  experience  that  led 
the  followers  of  Jesus  to  a  faith  like  this?"  It 
was  the  power  of  the  risen  and  ever  present  Christ, 
and  the  love  of  Christ  constrained  them.  What  Is 
the  love  of  Jesus  for  those  who  find  most  in  Him? 
It  is  this  belief  that  in  Him  the  sin  of  the  past  is 
taken  away.  They  certainly  live  on  the  basis  of 
being  able,  by  His  strength  daily  given,  to  over- 
come the  repeated  impulse  of  evil  from  without  or 
from  within,  and  of  being.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment phrase,  "kept  by  the  power  of  God."     "We 


30  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

are  more  than  conquerors  through  Him  that  loved 
us."  With  the  Christian  martyr  facing  a  dis- 
graceful and  painful  death;  and  yet  enduring  pain 
and  shame  without  human  sympathy  some  su- 
preme and  effective  motive  was  necessary  to  sus- 
tain them.  To  them  Christ  was  real,  and  they 
realized  their  vital  relation  to  Him  whilst  seeing 
Him  that  is  invisible — who  once  went  through  the 
agony  of  the  cross  in  order  to  save  them.  He  gave 
them  power  to  do  and  to  endure.  St.  Paul  was 
only  one  of  the  Christian  heroes  who  could  truly 
say:  "I  can  do  all  things  through  Him  that 
strengtheneth  me."  He  and  He  alone  was  the 
substantial  Helper  for  them  in  their  undying  faith. 
Nothing  can  be  more  real  than  our  experience 
and  convictions.  It  is  what  we  know;  it  lies  within 
our  own  consciousness,  and  embodies  all  our  per- 
sonal history,  and  we  have  our  most  direct  knowl- 
edge through  our  experience.  When  the  boy's 
sight  had  been  restored  he  knew  from  personal 
experience  that  whilst  he  had  been  blind  for  years 
now  he  saw,  and  no  reasoning  nor  threats  could 
shake  the  conviction  of  that  knowledge,  for  it  was 
based  upon  his  own  experience.  No  one  can  ques- 
tion the  reasonableness  of  such  an  argument,  nor 
deny  the  validity  of  human  experience,  for  to 
deny  it  would  be  to  deny  our  consciousness — the 
foundation  of  our  knowledge.     If  we  abide  in 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         31 

Christ  and  He  in  us  as  He  teaches  us,  and  as  we 
believe,  then  is  it  too  much  to  claim  some  sort  of 
experiential  or  experimental  knowledge  of  this 
intimate  and  vital  relation?  Or  must  it  ever  re- 
main merely  a  matter  of  faith,  an  intellectual  ap- 
prehension of  belief,  and  outside  of  all  moral  and 
spiritual  consciousness?  Can  there  be  no  certainty 
or  knowledge  from  religious  conviction  whilst 
we  trust  to  so  much  knowledge  that  comes  to  us 
through  actual  experiencce  by  means  of  the  senses 
that  we  have  learned  to  trust?  Can  there  be  no 
evidence  from  the  religious  experience  of  the  soul, 
and  must  we  deny  God's  power  or  will  ever  to 
manifest  Himself  in  this  manner  to  His  children? 
Heroes  have  trusted  themselves  to  the  evidence  of 
religious  experience  and  found  it  precious  and 
soul-satisfying.  Inasmuch  as  the  Spirit  Himself 
beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  and  "being  justified  by  faith  we  have 
peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
and  since  He  gives  to  us  "the  peace  of  God  that 
passeth  all  understanding,  guarding  our  thoughts 
and  minds  in  Christ  Jesus,"  surely  it  is  not  too 
much  to  crave  a  realizing  sense  of  his  indwelling. 
We  realize  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  the  bless- 
edness of  fellowship  with  Christ,  for  He  says: 
"ye  shall  find  peace  to  your  soul."  Such  a  fel- 
lowship with   God  that  transforms   ideals,   pur- 


32  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

poses,  hopes  and  living,  must  be  attended  with 
some  conscious  reahzation  of  God's  influence  upon 
us,  for  "it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will 
and  to  work,  for  His  good  pleasure."  The  ex- 
periences of  the  heart  that  lead  to  a  transformed 
life  of  righteousness  may  be  trusted  more  implic- 
itly than  some  metaphysical  speculations  however 
logical  the  reasoning  may  be.  The  men  who  have 
studied  the  profound  problems  of  life,  involving 
sin  and  the  wants  of  the  soul,  and  thought  most 
deeply  about  the  things  of  God  and  man's  present 
and  eternal  destiny,  have  been  most  thoroughly 
persuaded  that  Christ  is  all  that  He  claimed  to 
be,  and  that  He  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of  men. 
The  faith  of  the  Christian  does  not  rest  upon 
some  foundation  in  the  invisible  realm  of  uncer- 
tainty, but  is  based  upon  the  living  and  ever  pres- 
ent Christ  who  abides  with  us  forevermore.  The 
supreme  verities  connected  with  His  Person  are 
undeniable  facts  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and 
impartial  criticism  bears  testimony  to  their  unas- 
sailable character.  This  is  the  sober  judgment  of 
scholarship  of  the  most  thorough  historical  in- 
vestigation. There  is  a  certain  objective  histori- 
cal reality  for  our  faith.  Whilst  the  Apostle  Paul 
had  subjective  experiences  of  the  reality  and  power 
of  Christ  in  the  soul — it  was  none  the  less  a  mat- 
ter of  practical  knowledge  that  made  his  subse- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         33 

quent  life  of  effectiveness  in  the  cause  of  Christ 
for  humanity.  The  foundations  of  our  faith  have 
not  gone  unchallenged  by  scientific  investigation 
and  historical  research,  and  yet  these  rather  con- 
firm the  fact  that  the  Church  has  not  overesti- 
mated the  Person  of  Christ.  Harnack  refers  to 
Acts  4:10-12  as  the  creed  of  the  primitive  Church  : 
"Be  it  known  unto  you  all,  and  to  all  the  people 
of  Israel,  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth,  whom  ye  crucified,  whom  God  raised 
from  the  dead.  .  .  And  in  none  other  is  there  sal- 
vation :  for  neither  is  there  any  other  name  under 
heaven,  that  is  given  among  men,  whereby  we 
must  be  saved."  "With  this  creed  she  began,  in 
the  faith  of  it  her  martyrs  have  died;  and  to-day 
as  1800  years  ago,  it  is  from  this  creed  that  she 
derives  her  strength."  Of  all  the  founders  of  re- 
ligion He  is  "the  only  One  that  we  know  that 
united  the  deepest  humility  and  purity  of  will  with 
the  claim  that  He  was  more  than  all  the  prophets 
who  were  before  him:  the  Son  of  God.  Of  Him 
alone  we  know  that  those  who  ate  and  drank  with 
Him,  glorified  Him  not  only  as  their  Teacher, 
Prophet  and  King,  but  also  as  the  Prince  of  Life, 
as  the  Redeemer,  Judge  of  the  world,  as  the  liv- 
ing power  of  their  existence — it  is  not  I  that  live, 
but  Christ  in  me,  and  that  presently  a  band  of 
Jew  and  Gentile,  the  wise  and  the  foolish,  ac- 


34  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

knowledged  that  they  had  received  from  the  abun- 
dance of  this  one  man,  grace  for  grace.  This  fact 
which  lies  open  to  the  light  of  day,  is  unique  in 
history;  it  requires  that  the  actual  personality  be- 
hind it  should  be  honored  as  unique." 

"What  is  it  that  leads  us  to  believe  in  an  eternal 
life?  reliance  upon  Christ.  God  speaks  to  us 
through  Him.  He  is  the  Way,  the  Truth  and  the 
Life :  the  true  Saviour,  Guide  and  Lord  who  leads 
the  soul  to  God." 

"The  sayings  and  discourses  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  image  of  His  life  itself  lose  no  particle  of 
their  power  and  validity,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  main  lineaments  of  the  personality  of 
Christ,  and  the  sense  and  true  point  of  His  say- 
ings, have  been  altered.  I  cannot  see  that  his- 
torical criticism  has  affected  any  such  change  .  .  . 
The  same  is  true  of  the  testimony  which  He  gave 
of  Himself  (in  the  Gospels),  and  the  united  tes- 
timony of  the  first  Christian  community.  It  en- 
ables us  to  gather  what  was  the  prevailing  impres- 
sion made  by  this  personality,  and  in  what  sense 
His  disciples  understood  His  words  and  the  tes- 
timony which  He  gave  of  Himself  .  .  .  All  that 
criticism  can  do  is  to  place  it  in  a  clearer  light  and 
so  increase  our  reverence  for  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
Let  the  plain  Bible  reader  continue  to  read  his 
Gospels  as  he  has  hitherto  read  them,  for  in  the 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         35 

end  the  critic  cannot  read  them  otherwise."  Chris- 
tianity and  History. 

John  Stuart  Mill  was  no  advocate  of  evangel- 
ical Christianity,  and  yet  in  his  Essays  on  Re- 
ligion he  is  impelled  to  say:  "whatever  else  may  be 
taken  away  from  us  by  rational  criticism,  Christ 
is  still  left,  a  unique  figure,  not  more  unlike  all  His 
predecessors  than  all  His  followers,  even  those 
who  had  the  direct  benefit  of  His  teachings.  It  is 
of  no  use  to  say  that  Christ  as  exhibited  in  the 
Gospels  is  not  historical,  and  that  we  know  not 
how  much  of  what  is  admirable  has  been  super- 
added by  the  tradition  of  His  followers  .  .  .  But 
who  among  His  disciples  or  among  their  prose- 
lytes was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings  ascribed 
to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  life  and  character 
revealed  in  the  Gospels?  Certainly  not  the  fisher- 
men of  Galilee."      Page  253. 

It  was  no  mere  accident  nor  arbitrary  council 
that  decided  or  fixed  the  Canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, for  there  was  no  party  in  power  to  create 
it,  but  it  was  the  incomparable  character  of  the 
writings  therein  contained  that  formed  and  closed 
the  sacred  canon.  The  force  of  this  statement  is 
seen  in  the  fact  that  there  are  no  contemporary 
nor  subsequent  Christian  writings  that  can  be  com- 
pared with  them,  and  that  could  possibly  have 
been  mistaken  as  belonging  to  the  canonical  Scrip- 


36  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

tures.  These  particular  writings  were  accepted 
as  such  because  of  their  positive-Inherent  char- 
acter. Their  content  Is  the  justification  for  their 
place  in  the  New  Testament.  To  realize  fully  what 
this  means  we  need  but  read  the  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pels and  compare  them  with  the  Four  Gospels,  or 
rather  contrast  them,  for  they  are  not  to  be  com- 
pared. No  one  could  mistake  the  spurious  Gospels 
for  the  genuine  ones.  Delssman  in  Light  from  the 
Ancient  East  says  that:  "the  formation  of  the  New 
Testament  is  the  most  important  event  In  the  lite- 
rary history  of  mankind.  .  .  .  The  fact  that 
scarcely  any  but  popular  and  primitive  Christian 
writings  found  their  way  into  the  nascent  New  Tes- 
tament Is  a  brilliant  proof  of  the  unerring  tact  of 
the  Church  that  formed  the  Canon."  Primitive 
Christianity  "began  without  any  written  book  at 
all.  There  was  only  the  living  words — the  gospel 
but  no  gospels.  Instead  of  the  letter  there  was  the 
spirit.  The  beginning  in  fact  was  Jesus  Himself." 
Gwatkin  makes  this  striking  discrimination: 
"There  is  no  more  striking  contrast  In  the  whole 
range  of  literature  than  that  between  the  creative 
energy  of  the  Apostolic  writers  and  the  imitative 
poverty  of  the  sub-Apostolic.  Contrast  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  with  that  of  Clement, 
or  even  better,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  with 
that  of  Barnabas.     They  set  before  us  the  same 


The  Christ  of  the  hordes  Supper         37 

questions  about  the  relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Gos- 
pel, and  give  the  same  general  answer  to  it:  but 
while  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  a  masterpiece, 
Barnabas  is  a  sad  bungler.  ...  In  the  uncanoni- 
cal  writers  we  miss  the  spiritual  depth  and  the  in- 
tellectual force  and  clearness  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment."   Church  Hist.  I,  98. 

But  how  shall  we  account  for  the  origin  of  the 
Church?  What  induced  the  early  Christians  to 
take  their  stand  for  Christ  and  follow  Him  when 
it  meant  sacrifice,  and  at  times  bitter  persecution? 
We  must  go  back  in  history  and  get  a  real  and 
vivid  picture  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world  when  the 
Church  was  born  so  as  to  appreciate  the  difficul- 
ties that  the  members  encountered.  How  did  that 
primitive  Church  originate  and  continue  to  attract 
new  members?  There  was  no  strong  and  influen- 
tial organization  to  begin  with,  having  magnifi- 
cent church  buildings,  for  no  such  buildings  ex- 
isted for  many  years,  or  until  near  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  and  the  only  meeting  place  of  the 
Church  was  in  the  house  of  some  of  the  leading 
members,  but  even  these  were  generally  plain  and 
poor  people.  We  have  a  contemporary  record 
that  gives  us  a  reliable  picture  from  the  writings 
of  St.  Paul:  "Behold  your  calling,  brethren,  that 
not  many  wise  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty, 
not  many  noble  are  called:  but  God  chose  the  fool- 


38  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ish  things  of  the  world,  that  He  might  put  to 
shame  them  that  are  wise;  and  God  chose  the 
weak  things  of  the  world,  that  He  might  put  to 
shame  the  things  that  are  strong."  There  was  no 
special  inducement  in  that  program  for  the  one 
who  was  ambitious  for  worldly  distinction  and  ag- 
grandizement. No  worldly  prizes  were  offered. 
Hence  the  supreme  motive  that  induced  men  to 
follow  Christ  was  of  a  very  different  character, 
and  if  we  reconstruct  a  picture  of  the  early  Church 
we  shall  find  that  it  was  not  only  without  wealth 
and  political  influence  and  favor  with  those  in 
authority,  but  they  were  placed  under  the  ban  of 
the  Empire  as  a  forbidden  religious  sect.  Only 
the  power  of  Christ  in  their  soul  can  account  for 
the  triumph  of  the  Church  under  these  adverse  cir- 
cumstances, and  without  Him  it  would  have  per- 
ished soon  after  it  was  born.  He  was  the  body  of 
the  Church  as  He  was  the  essence  of  Christianity. 
We  must  account  for  another  unquestioned  fact, 
and  that  is  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul.  Here  was 
an  extraordinary  example  of  a  Christian  convert 
from  the  higher-intellectual  class,  and  the  momen- 
tous change  was  a  thoroughly  radical  one.  No  one 
knowing  the  life  and  character  of  Paul — the  Saul 
of  Tarsus — will  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  acknowl- 
edge that  he  was  a  completely  converted  man,  for 
his  subsequent  life  shows  him  to  be  an  entirely  dif- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         39 

ferent  person — a  new  man  in  Christ  Jesus.  He 
himself  declares  respecting  the  change:  "I  was 
before  a  blasphemer,  and  a  persecutor,  and  injuri- 
ous:  howbeit  I  obtained  mercy,  because  I  did  it  ig- 
norantly  in  unbelief.  .  .  ."  He  was  no  longer  the 
bitter  persecutor  of  Christians,  for  he  had  become 
convinced  from  overwhelming  evidence  that  Jesus 
had  risen  from  the  dead,  and  had  appeared  to  him, 
and  that  He  was  the  Christ,  "the  living  God,  who 
is  the  Saviour  of  all  men:  who  would  have  all  men 
to  be  saved."  We  know  the  persistency  of  reli- 
gious beliefs,  and  Paul  was  strongly  intrenched  in 
his  intense  Jewish  religious  prejudices,  for  he  tells 
us  that  he  was  "a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews;  as 
touching  the  law,  a  Pharisee;  as  touching  zeal,  per- 
secuting the  Church.  Howbeit  what  things  were 
gain  to  me,  these  have  I  counted  loss  for  Christ. 
Yea  verily,  and  I  count  all  things  to  be  loss  for  the 
excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my 
Lord:  for  whom  I  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things, 
and  I  do  but  count  them  refuse,  that  I  may  gain 
Christ,  and  be  found  in  Him:  that  I  may  know 
Him  and  the  power  of  His  resurrection,  and  the 
fellowship  of  His  sufferings." 

Here  is  a  remarkable  outstanding  fact  of  history 
recorded  by  Paul  himself — who  once  persecuted 
the  Christians  with  a  deadly  hatred  because  they 
taught  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Messiah. 


40  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

This  he  believed  to  be  a  blasphemous  falsehood, 
and  hence  he  blasphemed  against  that  Name — 
even  unto  death.  We  have  abundant  and  reliable 
documentary  evidence  from  the  Apostle,  given  in 
his  own  words,  and  attested  to  by  a  long  life  of 
self-sacrificing  devotion  that  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood. Nothing  could  have  changed  his  religious 
convictions  short  of  evidence  that  could  not  be 
gainsaid.  With  him  there  was  no  question  as  to 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  this 
fact  he  emphasizes  in  his  Epistles,  beginning  with 
the  earliest,  I  Thessalonians,  written  about  the 
year  53.  The  fact  and  power  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion alone  can  account  for  the  conversion  and  life 
of  St.  Paul.  His  words  and  life  bear  irresistible 
testimony  to  the  fact,  for  it  is  utterly  inconceivable 
that  he  could  have  been  mistaken.  He  was  over- 
mastered by  the  conviction  because  the  proof  was 
overwhelming.  Even  such  an  unsympathetic  his- 
torical critic  as  Prof.  Percy  Gardner  feels  com- 
pelled to  bear  this  testimony  to  the  Apostle  as  a 
credible  witness  to  the  resurrection:  "As  regards 
his  own  life,  and  the  phenomenon  of  Christianity 
which  came  under  his  direct  observation,  he  is  as 
good  an  authority  as  we  can  have  in  regard  to  any 
events  in  ancient  history.  .  .  .  However  confused 
and  inconsistent  may  be  the  accounts  in  the  Gos- 
pels of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord,  there 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         41 

can  be  no  doubt  that  the  society  believed  such  ap- 
pearances to  have  taken  place.  No  other  cause 
can  be  suggested  for  the  sudden  change  in  the 
minds  of  the  disciples  from  consternation  and  ter- 
ror to  confidence  and  boldness.  And  the  well- 
known  Pauline  passage  as  to  the  witnesses  of  the 
resurrection  is  as  historic  evidence  of  the  belief  of 
the  first  disciples  unimpeachable.  Paul  himself 
claims  with  perfect  confidence  that  he  has  seen  the 
risen  Lord." 

Gwatkin  in  his  Church  History  refers  to  the  fact 
that,  "the  silent  transfer  of  worship  from  the  Sab- 
bath by  born  Jews  can  hardly  be  accounted  for  but 
by  the  overwhelming  impression  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. Similarly  the  Lord's  Supper  needs  the  resur- 
rection to  explain  its  observance.  It  is  hard  to 
see  how  either  could  have  arisen  at  once,  if  the 
horror  and  infamy  of  the  crucifixion  had  been  the 
end  of  all.  .  .  .  Though  there  is  no  recorded 
command  of  the  Lord  for  the  observance  of  Sun- 
day, we  find  it  settled  from  the  first  as  the  usual 
day  for  common  worship.  .  .  .  The  observance 
differed  both  in  motive  and  character  from  the 
Sabbath.  It  commemorated  not  the  Seventh  day 
of  the  creation,  but  the  Saviour's  resurrection:  and 
what  marked  it  out  was  common  worship,  not  Sab- 
batic rest.  .  .  .  Constantine's  legislation  is  good 
proof  that  by  his  time  there  was  a  widespread  feel- 


42  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

fng  against  needless  worldly  business  on  Sunday." 
The  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  was  a  significant  fact,  and  fixed 
times  of  worship  began  at  once;  the  Christians  in 
Jerusalem  going  up  to  the  temple  to  pray;  and 
elsewhere  they  sought  out  the  synagogues  until 
they  were  excluded.  They  worshipped  in  houses 
that  had  rooms  to  accommodate  them,  and  suit- 
able for  worship.  They  were  not  permitted  to 
hold  church  property  until  the  edict  of  Severus  in 
the  third  century. 

No  one  who  thoughtfully  reads  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  can  fail  to  be  impressed  with  what  he 
thought  of  Christ,  for  he  exalts  the  person  of 
Christ  to  oneness  with  God  the  Father,  for  "in 
Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bod- 
ily;" and  he  speaks  of  Christ  "who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever;"  and  agairt  writes  of  "the  appear- 
ing of  the  glory  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ."  He  is  the  universal  and  only  Sa- 
viour of  mankind,  and  "Whosoever  shall  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved." 
"Even  as  God  also  in  Christ  forgave  you."  "In 
whom  we  have  our  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of 
our  sins:  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God 
.  .  .  that  in  all  things  He  might  have  the  preemi- 
nence. For  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father 
that  in  Him  should   all  the   fulness   dwell,   and 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         43 

through  Him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself, 
having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  His 
cross."  "And  you  being  dead  through  your  tres- 
passes— did  He  make  alive  with  Him,  having  for- 
given us  all  our  trespasses;  having  blotted  out  the 
bond  written  in  ordinances  that  was  against  us, 
which  was  contrary  to  us,  and  He  hath  taken  it  out 
of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross,"  "To  Him  bear 
all  the  prophets  witness;  that  through  His  name 
everyone  that  believeth  on  Him  shall  receive  re- 
mission of  sins." 

The  Apostle  emphasized  the  immeasurable  sav- 
ing power  of  Christ:  "Being  therefore  justified  by 
faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  "There  is  therefore  now  no  con- 
demnation to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus." 
"Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  works  of 
the  law  but  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  even  we 
believed  on  Christ  Jesus,  that  we  might  be  justi- 
fied by  faith  in  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the 
law:  because  by  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh 
be  justified."  "But  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye  that 
once  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  In  the  blood  of 
Christ." 

The  Apostle  saw  "the  light  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  who  is 
the  image  of  the  Invisible  God,"  for  "God  was  In 
Christ    reconciling    the    world    unto    Himself." 


44  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

"Christ  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of 
God."  "The  free  gift  of  God  is  eternal  Hfe  in 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord;"  and  "Your  life  is  hid  with 
Christ  in  God."  "Let  the  peace  of  Christ  rule  in 
your  hearts,  and  let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in 
you  richly;  and  whatsoever  ye  do,  in  word  or  in 
deed,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
giving  thanks  to  God  the  Father  through  Him." 
"The  peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  understand- 
ing, shall  keep  your  hearts,  and  your  thought  in 
Christ  Jesus.  And  God  shall  supply  every  need  of 
yours  according  to  his  riches  in  glory  in  Christ 
Jesus."  "Who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate, 
the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,"  "Our  Sa- 
viour Christ  Jesus,  who  abolished  death,  and 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the 
Gospel." 

What  a  vision  of  the  glory  and  universal  su- 
premacy of  Christ  the  Apostle  must  have  had 
when  he  wrote  his  letter  to  the  Christians  at  Phil- 
ippi;  telling  them  how  Christ  "who  existing  in  the 
form  of  God"  came  from  heaven  to  earth  in  great 
humiliation  for  the  redemption  of  the  world  by 
His  death  on  the  cross:  "Wherefore  also  God 
highly  exalted  Him,  and  gave  unto  Him  the  name 
which  is  above  every  name;  that  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven 
and  things  on  earth  and  things  under  the  earth, 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         45 

and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 
It  was  the  power  of  His  resurrection  that  in- 
spired St.  Paul  to  utter  the  challenge:  "Who  shall 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  .  .  .  I  am 
persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  things 
to  come;  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love 
of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 

This  triumphant  confession  and  challenge  was 
the  expression  of  a  matured  conviction  of  faith 
that  had  been  thoroughly  tested  through  years  of 
hardship,  but  which  never  failed  because  Christ 
never  failed  him.  He  writes  :  "I  know  Him  whom 
I  have  believed,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  He  is 
able  to  guard  that  which  I  have  committed  unto 
Him  against  that  day."  "Of  the  Jews  five  times 
received  I  forty  stripes  save  one.  Thrice  was  I 
beaten  with  rods,  once  was  I  stoned,  thrice  I  suf- 
fered shipwreck."  "What  things  befell  me  at  An- 
tioch,  at  Lystra;  what  persecutions  I  endured:  and 
out  of  them  all  the  Lord  delivered  me."  "At  my 
first  defence  (in  Rome) ,  no  one  took  my  part,  but 
all  forsook  me.  .  .  .  But  the  Lord  stood  by  me, 
and  strengthened  me.  .  .  .  The  Lord  will  deliver 
me  from  every  evil  work,  and  will  save  me  unto 
His  heav^enly  kingdom."  Such  a  man  could  not 
have  been  mistaken  as  to  the  fact  of  the  risen 
Christ.   His  faith  was  no  momentary  impulse,  but 


46  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  profound  and  steady  conviction  of  a  life — 
thoroughly  tested  by  the  severest  trials,  but  striv- 
ing according  to  the  working  of  Christ  "which 
worketh  in  me  mightily,"  as  he  assures  the  Church. 
At  Lystra  "they  stoned  Paul  and  dragged  him  out 
of  the  city,  supposing  that  he  was  dead."  I  had 
a  vivid  mental  picture  of  the  bitter  opposition  en- 
countered by  St.  Paul,  during  a  visit  that  I  made  to 
the  ruins  of  the  ancient  theatre  at  Ephesus.  With 
the  aid  of  the  imagination  and  all  the  local  asso- 
ciations I  was  able  to  reproduce  a  memorable  scene 
witnessed  here  when  it  was  crowded  with  the  zeal- 
ous followers  of  the  Ephesian  Artemis,  with  a  bed- 
lam of  voices  crying  out:  "Great  is  Diana  of  the 
Ephesians,"  and  it  was  not  safe  for  the  Apostle  to 
enter  lest  that  angry  mob  should  tear  him  limb 
from  limb,  for  daring  to  proclaim  Christ  in  their 
city.  The  cause  of  Christ  seemed  hopeless  on  that 
day,  but  how  changed  the  situation  since  then? 
Not  only  has  the  city  of  Ephesus  disappeared,  but 
that  once  great  Diana,  the  Ephesian  Artemis 
whom  they  claimed  that  all  the  world  worshipped, 
has  not  one  worshipper  to-day.  Some  may  ask, 
but  why  did  not  all  who  saw  and  heard  Jesus  be- 
lieve and  follow  Him  if  He  were  the  true  Mes- 
siah? In  reply  I  would  state  that  no  public  man 
impresses  all  alike.  Abraham  Lincoln  was  loved 
and  admred  by  many,  but  he  was  just  as  truly  ma- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         47 

ligned  and  hated  by  others.  Here  Is  a  psychologi- 
cal fact  seen  in  the  history  of  politics  and  religions. 
What  bitter  opposition  has  often  existed;  each 
party  claiming  to  be  right;  and  the  wars  of  re- 
ligion have  been  the  most  shocking,  Jesus  did  not 
escape  the  wrongs  of  men.  Before  Pilate  we  hear 
the  mob  crying:  "Give  us  Barabbas:  Away  with 
Jesus.  Crucify  Him."  Christ  did  not  change, 
though  the  world  has  given  Him  a  name  that  is 
above  every  name,  for  He  ever  continues  the  same. 
Man  under  the  enlightenment  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
sees  Christ  and  the  Gospels  in  a  new  light,  and 
as  he  never  saw  them  before.  Hence  the  problem 
to  be  solved  is  not  merely  one  of  objective  histori- 
cal evidence,  for  that  remains  unchanged  so  far 
as  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  are  concerned; 
but  it  resolves  itself  into  a  matter  of  correct  inter- 
pretation, understanding  and  experimental  knowl- 
edge gained  from  personal  conviction  in  our  own 
soul.  Prof.  Bowne  tells  of  a  man  who  after  read- 
ing the  words  of  the  Apostle:  "  'If  thine  enemy 
hunger,  feed  him:  if  he  thirst  give  him  drink,  for 
in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his 
head,'  declared  it  was  the  most  infernal  thing  he 
had  ever  heard.  Of  course,  if  he  viewed  it  that 
way,  and  in  that  spirit  he  was  in  no  mood  to  be 
convinced  by  argument."  Christ  foresaw  such 
types  of  men,  and  the  impossibility  of  convincing 


48  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

men  against  their  will  when  He  said:  "If  they  be- 
lieve not  Moses  and  the  prophets  neither  will  they 
believe  though  one  rose  from  the  dead."  We 
might  as  well  ask:  why  do  not  all  children  follow 
the  teachings  and  example  of  Christian  parents, 
and  lead  a  life  of  virtue  and  usefulness,  instead  of 
disobeying  them  and  wasting  their  lives  In  un- 
righteous living,  especially  in  view  of  the  Incon- 
trovertible fact  that  "Godhness  Is  profitable  unto 
all  things, — and  the  wages  of  sin  is  death?"  Such 
wasted  lives  are  no  exception,  but  it  does  not  prove 
that  there  Is  no  such  thing  as  virtue,  and  that  the 
evildoer  gets  the  most  out  of  his  life.  His  best 
judgment  as  well  as  his  conscience  tell  him  better 
whilst  sinning  against  the  will  of  God  and  disobey- 
ing his  parents.  God  does  not  coerce  a  man 
against  his  will.  His  method  Is  stated  in  Rev. 
3  :20:  "Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock:  if 
any  man  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door,  I  will 
come  in  to  him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with 
me." 

No  man  Is  entitled  to  be  heard  in  testimony 
either  for  or  against  Christ  Jesus  who  has  no  rev- 
erence for  holy  things ;  who  is  prejudiced  against 
Him,  for  such  prepossessions  disqualify  him 
from  knowing  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  just  as 
the  man  who  Is  color  blind  has  no  right  to  sit  in 
judgment  upon  the  masterpieces  in  a  picture  gal- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         49 

lery  and  criticise  the  blending  of  colors,  for  the 
one  who  is  so  defective  in  vision  cannot  even  see 
in  all  their  marvelous  beauty  of  color  the  magnifi- 
cent splendor  displayed  in  the  rainbow,  or  in  the 
gorgeous  sunset.  The  rationalistic  critic  would 
eliminate  the  eternal  Spirit  of  God,  and  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  that  dwelt  in  Christ, 
and  shorn  of  all  divinity — call  upon  us  to  behold 
the  Man.  But  that  is  merely  the  Jesus  of  their 
own  making  and  not  the  Christ  of  history.  With 
minds  prepossessed  with  unbelief,  and  with  an  un- 
sympathetic mental  attitude  they  cannot  see  the 
things  that  are  spiritually  discerned,  and  they  fail 
to  recognize  Christ  as  truly  as  did  the  woman  of 
Samaria  at  Jacob's  well,  and  Jesus  might  address 
some  modern  critics  as  he  said  to  her:  "If  thou 
knewest  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it  is  that  saith 
to  thee.  Give  me  to  drink;  thou  wouldest  have 
asked  of  Him,  and  He  would  have  given  thee 
living  water." 

Christ  emphasized  a  philosophic  truth  when  He 
said:  "If  any  man  willeth  to  do  His  will,  he  shall 
know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  is  of  God,  or 
whether  I  speak  from  myself."  As  well  might  a 
man  argue  against  the  choice  flavor  of  a  luscious 
peach,  or  an  Oregon  nectarine  who  had  never 
tasted  one  as  for  an  unsympathetic  unbeliever  to 
set  up  as  authoritative  his  definition  of  the  per- 


50  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

sonality  of  Christ.  Or  for  one  who  has  no  ear  for 
music  to  claim  authority  for  judging  a  production 
of  music;  or  an  illiterate  and  inartistic  mind  to 
pose  as  a  judge  of  the  merits  of  literature  and  art. 
The  one  who  has  never  loved — if  there  be  such  a 
one,  knows  not  the  joys  and  power  of  love.  As 
well  tell  the  mother  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
love,  as  to  tell  the  devoted  Christian  that  his  faith 
in  Christ  is  all  a  delusion.  Like  the  Apostle  he 
knows  the  constraining  power  of  the  love;  of 
Christ,  and  he  speaks  with  an  authority  that  comes 
from  personal  conviction.  It  is  this  that  impresses 
us  with  the  Epistle  of  St.  John:  "That  which  we 
have  seen  and  heard  (concerning  the  Word  of 
life)  declare  we  unto  you  also,  that  ye  also  may 
have  fellowship  with  us;  yea,  and  our  fellowship 
is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ : 
and  these  things  we  write,  that  our  joy  may  be 
made  full." 

The  strongly  prejudiced  one,  obsessed  with  his 
objections,  whether  real  or  imaginary,  is  not  open 
to  conviction,  and  hence  he  will  not  be  persuaded 
by  any  argument,  for  though  convinced  against  his 
will — he  stands  firmly  by  his  prejudices.  Christ 
encountered  such  unsympathetic  ones  on  various 
occasions  who  willed  not  to  believe  in  Him:  "Ye 
search  the  scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them 
ye  have  eternal  life;  and  these  are  they  which  bear 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         51 

witness  of  me;  and  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that  ye 
may  have  life."  When  He  taught  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Nazareth  many  were  astonished  at  the 
wisdom  of  His  teachings,  and  the  mighty  works 
wrought  by  His  hands,  as  they  had  learned,  but 
prejudice  led  them  to  ask:  "Is  not  this  the  carpen- 
ter, the  son  of  Mary?"  They  plainly  indicated  by 
the  contemptuous  tone  of  their  question,  that  their 
purpose  in  asking  it  was  to  discredit  Him,  and  to 
cast  suspicion  upon  His  claims.  When  on  the  Sab- 
bath he  healed  the  woman  who  had  suffered  for  18 
years  from  an  infirmity,  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, instead  of  glorifying  God  with  her  for  such 
a  mercy,  was  moved  with  indignation  because  He 
had  healed  her  on  the  Sabbath  day  and  sought  to 
prejudice  the  multitude  against  Him.  That  was 
another  striking  contrast  when  Jesus  moved  with 
unbounded  pity  for  the  poor  man  afflicted  with  the 
withered  hand,  healed  him  on  the  Sabbath,  but 
this  so  enraged  "the  Pharisees  with  the  Herodians 
that  they  took  counsel  against  Him,  how  they 
might  destroy  Him."  That  was  the  climax  at  the 
trial  of  Jesus  when  the  chief  priests  stirred  up  the 
multitude  that  they  should  demand  that  Pilate  re- 
lease unto  them  the  robber  Barabbas  for  freedom 
— rather  than  the  innocent  Jesus,  and  shouted: 
"Crucify  Him,  Crucify  Him!"  St.  Paul  expresses 
the  striking  contrasts  of  prejudice  when  he  wrote : 


52  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

"We  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  Jews  a  stum- 
bling block,  and  unto  Gentiles  foolishness;  but  unto 
them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ 
the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God." 
Paul's  enemies  at  Jerusalem  maddened  by  preju- 
dice exclaimed  with  murderous  frenzy:  "Away 
with  such  a  fellow  from  the  earth :  for  it  is  not  fit 
that  he  should  live." 

How  shall  we  account  for  the  power  of  the 
Church  in  the  past  centuries,  and  to-day,  or  in 
what  does  that  power  consist?  I  am  not  tempted 
to  idealize  the  Church;  to  deny  the  many  sad  mis- 
takes made  by  the  members,  nor  to  condone  the 
sins  committed  by  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Church,  but  the  overwhelming  preponderance  has 
been  for  good;  for  the  moral  and  spiritual  eleva- 
tion of  mankind.  Auguste  Sabatier  wrote  true  and 
sober  words :  "Taken  all  in  all  where  shall  we  find 
a  higher  or  more  universal  school  of  respect  than 
in  the  Church,  a  more  efficacious  means  of  com- 
fort and  consolation  than  the  communion  of  the 
brethren,  a  safer  tutelary  shelter  for  souls  still  in 
their  minority?  And  what  part  played  in  history 
is  comparable  to  that  of  the  Church  in  the  history 
of  the  Church  in  European  civilization?  Chris- 
tianity can  neither  realize  nor  propagate  herself 
without  the  Church ;  the  Church  cannot  live  with- 
out the  Bible."     (Religions  of  Authority).     He 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         53 

should  have  added  that  the  Church  cannot  live 
without  the  Indwelling  Christ  who  is  the  head  and 
body  of  the  Church.  It  is  because  of  His  abiding 
presence  that  the  Church  has  prevailed  in  spite  of 
all  human  weaknesses  and  the  contradictions  in  the 
lives  of  many  members.  When  Christ  declared  to 
His  disciples,  ''Abide  in  me  and  I  will  abide  in 
you,"  He  meant  that  He  would  ever  sustain  a  vital 
relation  to  His  people ;  that  He  would  never  leave 
nor  forsake  them.  "Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway." 
These  were  momentous  words,  but  Christ  meant 
all  that  He  said,  and  the  Church  prevailed  be- 
cause the  faithful  members  abode  in  Him  as  the 
branches  in  the  vine.  He  inspired  them  as  well  as 
sustained  and  strengthened  them,  and  hence  their 
faith,  heroism  and  power  of  endurance.  They  be- 
lieved not  only  in  the  risen  and  ever  living  Christ, 
but  that  He  was  living  in  them  as  He  had  prom- 
ised, and  would  never  fail  them  in  their  greatest 
need.  It  was  this  deep  conviction  of  Christ's  abid- 
ing presence  in  them  that  made  them  bold  and 
mighty,  and  this  must  ever  be  the  fundamental 
faith  of  the  Church.  This  was  the  secret  of  the 
power  of  St.  Paul:  "Christ  liveth  in  me,"  and 
nothing  less  than  this  can  satisfy  the  living  Chris- 
tian to-day  and  make  the  Church  a  mighty  power 
for  good. 

No  student  of  history  nor  thoughtful  observer 


54  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

of  the  Church  to-day  can  fail  to  recognize  that  at- 
tendent  power.  When  the  world  became  involved 
in  this  appalling  war  that  the  Church  should  have 
averted  according  to  the  mind  of  some  critics,  un- 
belief became  bold  and  rampant  in  some  impulsive 
spirits  who  declared  that  the  death  knell  of  Chris- 
tianity had  been  sounded,  and  its  power  had  gone 
forever.  But  these  prophets  of  evil  failed  to 
steady  their  thoughts,  and  to  safeguard  their 
speech,  for  the  prevailing  facts  show  that  Chris- 
tianity was  never  more  alive  to  human  needs  and 
in  greater  demand  than  now,  and  never  was  there 
such  a  universal  call  for  the  preaching  of  the  pure 
Gospel.  There  has  been  a  steady  and  ever-increas- 
ing demand  for  chaplains  and  camp  pastors.  The 
thoroughly  organized  work  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A., 
the  K.  of  C,  and  the  various  denominations  of  the 
Church  Is  the  undeniable  proof  of  this  statement. 
But  there  is  another  fact  in  all  this  that  is  of  su- 
preme importance;  the  soldiers  want  the  pastors 
and  chaplains  to  preach  Christ  and  the  Gospel; 
they  would  see  Jesus;  and  they  call  for  the  Gospel 
hymns  that  have  Christ  in  them.  The  Church  is 
not  doomed  but  is  taking  on  new  power.  The 
Church  has  not  lost  faith  in  Christ,  but  as  ever 
preaches  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ  and 
makes  its  final  appeal  to  Him,  for  He  is  the  head 
and  body  of  the  Church,  the  chief  corner  stone,  and 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         55 

"other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  which 
is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  Never  has  the 
Church  denied  Christ,  but  it  has  been  inseparable 
from  Him  from  the  very  beginning,  and  all  its  in- 
spiration and  power  come  from  Him  through  the 
various  organized  forces,  and  it  is  the  most  po- 
tent agency  on  earth  for  the  moral  and  spiritual 
regeneration  and  elevation  of  humanity.  The 
Church  has  not  lost  hope  because  of  the  unbounded 
greed  of  some  rulers  who  would  rob  and  destroy 
other  people  for  the  sake  of  conquest;  for  rulers 
like  individuals*  may  exercise  their  will  to  rob  and 
kill,  for  God  does  not  enforce  obedience  against 
the  will  of  the  evildoer,  no  more  than  He  compels 
belief  against  the  man's  will.  Instead  of  the 
Church  despairing  in  the  face  of  this  world's  ca- 
lamity we  can  look  into  the  face  of  the  ever-living 
and  present  God,  who  Is  our  Almighty  helper, 
and  say  with  the  Apostle:  "I  am  filled  with  com- 
fort, I  overflow  with  joy  In  all  our  affliction."  "I 
can  do  all  things  through  Him  that  strengtheneth 
me."  He  was  only  one  of  the  multitude  of  Chris- 
tian heroes  whom  no  man  can  number  who  could 
truly  repeat  these  words,  for  they  are  not  without 
hope  and  without  God  In  the  world.  Luther  wrote 
to  Justus  Jonas  the  encouraging  words:  "Christ 
lives,  and  does  not  sit  at  the  Emperor's  but  at 
God's  right  hand,  else  we  should  have  been  lost 


^6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

long  ago."  What  a  striking  contrast  with  the 
Diary  of  Marcus  Aurehus;  whose  sayings  some 
have  magnified,  but  according  to  Glover  is  "surely 
the  most  desperately  hopeless  book  ever  written. 
Marcus  had  as  little  joy  or  hope  as  ever  man  had 
who  got  through  a  life  of  work  without  hanging 
himself."  Even  the  unfortunate  persecution  of 
Christians  at  times  must  have  afforded  him  no  sat- 
isfactory diversion.  He  died,  but  the  Church  en- 
dured all  the  persecutions  waged  against  her,  and 
became  the  foremost  and  the  mightiest  agency  for 
the  spread  of  lofty  ideals,  and  the  universal  re- 
generation of  mankind  that  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  It  continues  as  a  social,  moral  and  religious 
necessity,  and  no  city  nor  state  would  ever  vote  to 
close  the  doors  of  the  Church. 

I  have  written  respecting  the  impression  that 
Jesus  made  upon  His  disciples  and  contemporaries, 
and  the  testimony  that  they  bore  concerning  Him, 
as  well  as  the  testimony  of  the  Church  universal. 
After  Jesus  had  stilled  the  storm  and  the  fears  of 
the  disciples  on  the  sea  of  Galilee,  so  profoundly 
were  they  impressed  with  His  transcendent  Person 
that  "they  worshipped  Him,  saying.  Of  a  truth 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  At  Caesarea  PhilippI, 
when  He  asked  His  disciples:  "Who  say  ye  that  I 
am?  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."    John  the  Bap- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         57 

tist  bore  this  testimony  to  Christ:  "Behold,  the 
Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world."  Nathaniel  was  fully  persuaded  when  he 
said  to  Him:  "Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God; 
thou  art  the  King  of  Israel."  Nicodemus,  a  ruler 
of  the  Jews,  testified  to  his  convictions:  "Rabbi, 
we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God; 
for  no  one  can  do  these  signs  that  thou  doest,  ex- 
cept God  be  with  him."  The  Gospel  of  John, 
written  many  years  after  the  events  had  trans- 
pired, and  his  early  impressions  had  been  thor- 
oughly tested  by  trying  experiences  of  serious  re- 
flection and  matured  convictions  that  remained  un- 
shaken must  be  accounted  for.  His  positive  testi- 
mony to  the  Divine  Person  of  Christ  Jesus  is  no 
sudden  impulse,  or  outburst  of  momentary  enthu- 
siasm, but  the  result  of  what  he  saw  and  heard,  and 
all  the  subsequent  mental  processes  that  had  passed 
through  the  alembic  of  his  personal  consciousness 
— tried  by  the  intellectual  difficulties  involved  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  God-man,  and  by  the  disap- 
pointments, and  trials  that  he  experienced  through 
a  long  and  strenuous  life.  It  was  impossible  to 
have  been  mistaken,  and  we  must  reckon  with  the 
unique  Person,  the  works  and  sayings  that  he  at- 
tributes to  Him,  and  then  ask  whence  and  how  did 
he  get  the  lofty  conceptions  concerning  Christ 
whom  he  knew  personally  and  so  intimately, — if 


58  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

not  from  Jesus  Himself,  for  he  was  Incapable  of 
inventing  such  a  character.  The  writer  ascribes  to 
Him  words  such  as  man  never  uttered:  take  the 
familiar  passage:  "For  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  on  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eter- 
nal life."  Nowhere  in  all  the  Sacred  Books 
of  the  East  can  you  match  these  words.  The  very 
conception  is  even  unthinkable  in  a  religion  that 
makes  the  caste  system  fundamental.  It  was  a 
precious  revelation  and  inspiration  to  universal 
humanity — such  as  man  never  dreamed  of.  That 
the  great  God  our  heavenly  Father  loves  every 
man,  and  gave  His  only  begotten  Son  to  die  that 
He  might  save  all  men;  not  merely  some  favored, 
chosen  people  of  Israel,  but  Christ  embraced  in  the 
scope  of  His  love  and  sacrifice  the  whole  world  of 
humanity.  All  were  God's  offspring;  all  were  His 
children,  however  unworthy  many  might  be,  and 
He  loved  and  longed  to  save  them  all.  This  rev- 
elation was  indeed  a  precious  Gospel  of  good 
news  from  God,  and  it  became  the  hope  and  joy  of 
the  poor,  the  wronged,  and  oppressed,  for  God 
loved  and  was  concerned  for  them  and  If  God  be 
for  us  who  can  be  against  us?  That  assurance 
was  a  new  source  of  strength  and  endurance;  it 
gave  a  new  and  priceless  value  to  every  soul,  how- 
ever humble,  and  it  made  life  worth  the  living,  and 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         59 

men  and  women  able  to  live  it,  even  in  times  of 
bitter  persecutions.  Here  was  the  Fatherhood  of 
God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man  taught  as  never 
before,  and  it  inspired  a  cheerful  hope  that  could 
not  be  crushed.  What  a  contrast  that  revelation 
was  with  the  prayer  of  the  Jew  about  the  same  pe- 
riod, who  prayed:  "I  thank  Thee,  that  I  am  a  Jew 
and  not  a  Gentile ;  a  man  and  not  a  woman,  a  free- 
man and  not  a  slave."  I  have  on  different  occa- 
sions when  in  the  Museum  in  Constantinople,  con- 
templated that  most  interesting  historic  monument 
— containing  the  Greek  inscription,  that  once  lay 
on  the  balustrade  of  the  Temple  that  divided  the 
Jew  from  the  Gentile  world,  warning  every  Gen- 
tile on  pain  of  a  certain  death  not  to  pass  within 
the  precincts  reserved  for  the  Jews.  Jesus  must 
have  seen  this  stone  and  read  the  sad  inscription, 
and  Paul  must  have  been  familiar  with  it,  and  had 
it  in  mind  when  he  wrote:  "But  now  in  Christ 
Jesus  ye  that  once  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  in 
the  blood  of  Christ.  For  He  is  our  peace,  who 
made  both  one,  and  brake  down  the  middle  wall  of 
partition."  "For  ye  are  all  sons  of  God,  through 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  There  can  be  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek,  there  can  be  neither  bond  nor  free, 
there  can  be  no  male  and  female;  for  ye  are  all 
one  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Our  review  of  the  things  to  be  reckoned  with  in 


6o  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  study  of  what  men  said  respecting  Christ  would 
be  incomplete  unless  we  consider  the  testimony  of 
One  who  knew  Him  best  of  all.  The  personal  let- 
ters of  some  noted  person  are  often  so  valuable 
because  they  are  the  genuine  and  frank  expression 
of  the  soul,  not  written  for  the  public  eye,  and 
hence  with  guarded  policy,  but  giving  us  an  actual 
insight  into  the  secret  thoughts,  motives  and  pur- 
poses of  life.  Recently  I  have  read  with  great  in- 
terest the  letters  of  Oliver  Cromwell,  and  they 
gave  me  an  insight  into  his  real  character  such  as 
I  had  not  obtained  from  biographies  written  by 
friends  and  foes.  In  these  unrevised  letters  we 
have  the  real  Cromwell  speaking  for  himself,  at 
his  best  and  at  his  worst,  the  testimony  that  he 
bears  of  himself,  and  not  the  extravagant  praise 
of  his  friends,  nor  the  rhetorical  misrepresenta- 
tions of  his  enemies.  Cromwell  is  the  writer;  with 
frankness — concealing  nothing,  but  stirred  with 
the  bitter  conflict  of  a  cruel  and  wicked  war  of  re- 
ligion, his  passion  of  narrow-intolerant  hate  is  on 
fire,  like  all  his  opponents  who  hate  with  deadly 
hatred,  and  he  discloses  it  all  in  language  that  un- 
mistakably reveal  the  true  political,  moral  and  re- 
ligious character  of  this  stern  and  cruel  soldier,  as 
well  as  the  wicked  times  in  which  he  lived.  But 
Jesus  also  spoke  freely  in  public,  concealing  and 
compromising  nothing,  but  declared  from  his  in- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         6i 

ner  consciousness  the  deep  things  of  God;  speak- 
ing boldly,  and  with  an  authority  so  different  from 
the  Scribes  that  the  people  were  deeply  impressed 
by  It,  and  His  enemies  demanded  of  Him:  "By* 
what  authority  doest  thou  these  things?  or  who 
gave  thee  this  authority  to  do  these  things?" 

The  divine  self-consciousness  of  Christ  Jesus  Is 
no  mere  dogma  of  theological  speculation,  but  a 
plain  and  unquestioned  fact  of  the  Gospel  record, 
that  Is  stated  time  and  again.  He  said  to  His  ene- 
mies:  "I  am  from  above,  I  am  not  of  this  world." 
"I  and  the  Father  are  one."  In  this  He  asserted 
His  essential  oneness  with  the  Father,  for  He  was 
"the  only  begotten  Son"  and  even  "God  only  be- 
gotten" as  Swete  and  many  very  ancient  author- 
ities read  John  i:i8.  But  the  Jews,  blinded 
by  prejudice,  "took  up  stones  again  to  stone  Him, 
saying;  for  blasphemy;  and  because  that  thou,  be- 
ing a  man,  makest  thyself  God.  Jesus  answered 
them.  .  .  Say  ye  of  Him,  whom  the  Father  sancti- 
fied and  sent  into  the  world.  Thou  blasphemest; 
because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God?  If  I  do  not 
the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not."  "Be- 
fore Abraham  was  I  am."  In  that  HIgh-prlestly 
Prayer  Jesus  asserts  His  pre-existence  and  oneness 
with  the  Father;  "And  now  Father,  glorify  thou 
me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was."    "All  things  have 


62  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father:  and  no  one 
knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any 
know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom- 
soever He  willeth  to  reveal  him."  He  had  this 
knowledge  and  authority  because  of  His  Sonship 
and  oneness  with  the  Father,  for  the  Eternal  Spirit 
of  God  was  in  Him.  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God.  .  .  And  the  Word  became  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us  ( and  we  beheld  His  glory,  glory  as 
the  only  begotten  from  the  Father)  full  of  grace 
and  truth.  .  .  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time; 
the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  He  hath  declared  him."  When  Philip,  ex- 
pressing the  universal  need  of  the  human  soul  said 
to  Jesus;  "Lord,  show  us  the  Father,  and  it  suffic- 
eth  us.  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Have  I  been  so  long 
time  with  you,  and  dost  thou  not  know  me,  Philip? 
He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father;  how 
sayest  thou,  show  us  the  Father?  Believest  thou 
not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me? 
Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
in  me."  "All  things  whatsoever  the  Father  hath 
are  mine :  therefore  said  I,  that  he  taketh  of  mine, 
and  shall  declare  it  unto  you."  "The  Father 
judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgments 
unto  the  Son."  "The  Son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins,"  was  His  answer  to  his  ene- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         63 

mies  who  charged  Him  with  blasphemy  because 
God  alone  could  forgive  sins:  "Thy  sins  be  for- 
given thee"  was  his  answer  and  challenge.  Heav- 
en and  earth  would  pass  away  but  not  His  words. 
"I  am  the  way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,  no  man 
Cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me."  Surely  no 
man  ever  spake  thus,  but  He  alone  who  came  from 
the  Father. 

Christ  startled  His  hearers  by  announcing  Him- 
self as  the  source  and  fountain  of  eternal  life,  and 
His  own  resurrection  from  the  dead  bear  witness 
that  His  testimony  is  true.  From  prehistoric  times 
men  had  pondered  with  anxious  inquiry  the  ques- 
tion; "If  a  man  die  shall  he  live  again?"  Christ 
Jesus  answered  the  question  once  for  all  when  He 
said:  "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life:  he  that 
believeth  on  Me,  though  he  die,  yet  shall  he  live, 
and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  on  Me  shall 
never  die."  "Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also." 
"For  this  is  the  will  of  the  Father,  that  every  one 
that  beholdeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  Him. 
should  have  eternal  life.  .  .  Verily,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  he  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life.  I  am 
the  bread  of  life.  .  .  I  am  the  living  bread  which 
came  down  out  of  heaven:  if  any  man  eat  of  this 
bread,  he  shall  live  forever.  .  .  And  this  is  life 
eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee  the  only  true 
God,  and  Him  whom  thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus 


64  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Christ."  "Whosoever  belleveth  may  In  Him  have 
eternal  Hfe."  "I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and 
they  shall  never  perish." 

These  are  clear  and  positive  statements  respect- 
ing our  personal  immortality.  It  is  true  that  the 
hope  for  some  future  life  has  been  a  well  nigh  uni- 
versal belief,  and  even  the  ancient  Egyptians  be- 
lieved in  some  sort  of  a  future  existence  as  we 
learn  from  the  objects  deposited  with  their  dead 
8000  years  ago,  but  it  was  a  vague  and  indefinite 
hope.  Even  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  but 
five  places  where  personal  immortality  is  stated 
with  any  degree  of  certainty,  and  yet  as  compared 
with  the  clear  revelations  of  the  New  Testament 
it  was  but  dimly  shadowed  forth,  and  not  so  clearly 
stated.  Hence  the  Apostle  spoke  truly  that  "life 
and  Immortality  were  brought  to  light  through  the 
Gospel,"  and  that  "the  free  gift  of  God  is  eternal 
life  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Christ  spoke 
clearly  and  with  positive  affirmation,  assuring  us 
of  our  eternal  life,  for  "If  any  man  keep  my  say- 
ings he  shall  never  see  death." 

He  who  made  such  astounding  claims  was  In- 
deed Immanuel,  who  with  boundless  love,  and 
knowing  what  was  in  the  hearts  of  humanity  gave 
that  precious  invitation:  "Come  unto  me,  all  ye 
that  weary  and  are  heavy  laden  and  I  will  give 
you  rest."     "Peace  I  leave  with  thee,  my  peace  I 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         65 

give  unto  thee,  not  as  the  world  giveth  give  I  unto 
thee."  "Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled,  ye  be- 
lieve in  God,  believ^e  also  in  me.  In  my  Father's 
house  are  many  mansions.  .  .  And  I  will  come  again 
and  will  receive  you  unto  myself  that  where  I  am 
there  ye  may  be  also."  These  are  startling  claims, 
but  His  Person  justified  Him,  and  the  disciples 
were  convinced  that  He  came  from  God.  When 
we  behold  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  as  God  incar- 
nate then  the  difficulties  vanish,  but  what  inconceiv- 
able self-assumption  for  any  mere  rational  being 
among  the  sons  of  men  to  utter  such  words?  No 
mere  human  being  could  have  put  forth  such 
claims  and  performed  such  works;  but  He  alone 
who  was  the  Eternal  Word  or  Son  of  God  who  be- 
came incarnate  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Young  says 
truly  that,  "it  is  only  by  the  admission  of  the  union 
of  Divinity  with  the  human  soul  with  Jesus  Christ 
that  a  solution  can  be  found  of  historical  and  psy- 
chological difficulties,  which  are  otherwise  as  in- 
surmountable as  they  are  undeniable.  The  idea  of 
incarnation  in  all  its  meaning  is,  indeed,  incompre- 
hensible, but  we  can  very  distinctly  comprehend 
that  it  must  be  true  nevertheless,  because,  other- 
wise facts  of  which  we  have  the  fullest  evidence 
are  absolutely  unbelievable.  The  incarnation  is  a 
profound  mystery,  but  intelligence  and  candor  will 
allow  that  this  is  the  very  region  where  mystery 


66  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

was  even  to  be  looked  for.  We  are  compelled  to 
believe  that  this  mystery  is  a  truth;  because  if  not, 
the  marvelous  phenomena  of  the  life  of  Jesus, 
which  we  cannot  deny,  are  not  only  a  mystery,  and 
one  even  more  inscrutable  and  insurmountable,  but 
a  direct  contradiction."  Christ  of  History,  185. 
He  was  Immanuel,  God  with  us,  and  when  Christ 
speaks  we  hear  the  voice  of  God,  and  hence  the 
authoritative  character  of  His  words  that  still  con- 
tinues. The  best  Christians,  and  the  most  intel- 
ligent and  scientific  among  His  followers  acknowl- 
edge the  binding  authority  of  the  eternal  truth  con- 
tained in  His  words.  However  much  they  may 
fail  in  living  up  to  their  ideals,  and  lament  their 
shortcomings,  they  realize  that  there  is  no  escape 
from  Christ's  standard  of  authority,  and  the  su- 
preme values  that  He  placed  upon  righteous  liv- 
ing. What  He  accounted  of  the  highest  impor- 
tance, and  what  He  regarded  of  comparatively 
little  consequence,  cannot  be  reversed  as  to  their 
relative  values  by  the  judgments  of  men  after 
nearly  nineteen  centuries.  He  emphasized  the  pri- 
macy of  religion  and  moral  life  when  He  called 
upon  men  to  "Seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
his  righteousness";  and  to  "Render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the 
things  that  are  God's." 

No  wonder  that  Christ  attracted  the  common 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         67 

people  and  they  heard  Him  gladly,  and  He  over- 
awed the  officers  sent  to  arrest  Him  so  that  they 
could  not  lay  hands  on  Him,  and  answered  those 
who  demanded  why  they  had  not  brought  Him: 
"Never  man  spake  thus."  The  Scribes  appealed 
to  the  prophets  for  their  authority  in  teaching,  but 
Christ  asserts  His  own  authority  as  final  when 
urging  His  claims.  He  not  only  claimed  to  be 
greater  than  a  prophet,  but  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah; nay  more,  that  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Bless- 
ed. He  referred  to  what  was  said  of  old,  and  then 
drew  the  sharp  contrast  between  them  and  His  per- 
sonal authority,  "But  I  say  unto  you."  That  was 
final — from  which  no  appeal  could  be  taken. 
Time  and  again  does  He  draw  this  authoritative 
contrast,  "But  I  say  unto  you."  "Ye  have  heard 
that  it  was  said :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and 
hate  thine  enemy;  but  I  say  unto  you.  Love  your 
enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute  you; 
that  ye  may  be  the  sons  of  your  Father  who  is  in 
heaven,  for  He  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil 
and  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust."  When  we  give  ourselves  up  to  bitter 
hate,  and  cease  to  love,  then  we  cease  to  be  Chris- 
tian. All  religious  hate  is  absolutely  un-Christian; 
and  contrary  to  the  teachings  and  spirit  of  Christ. 
The  Jews  were  put  to  their  wit's  end  to  ac- 
count for  the  Person  and  influence  of  Jesus,  and 


68  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

after  His  Irresistible  authority  in  cleansing  the 
Temple  of  the  shameful  abuses,  they  demanded  of 
Him,  "What  sign  showest  thou  unto  us,  seeing 
that  thou  doest  these  things?"  Jesus  answered 
them:  "Destroy  this  temple  (referring  to  His 
body),  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up  again." 
Later  their  murderous  hate  led  them  to  accept  this 
challenge,  not  dreaming  that  it  would  prove  disas- 
trous for  them,  for  His  resurrection  from  the  dead 
made  the  followers  of  Christ  invincible.  As  His 
power  over  the  people  increased,  and  that  of  the 
hierarchy  waned,  the  chief  priests,  and  scribes  and 
the  elders  in  Jerusalem  demanded  of  Him:  "By 
what  authority  doest  thou  these  things?  Or  who 
gave  thee  this  authority  to  do  these  things?"  Jesus 
put  them  to  silence  by  asking  them  a  question  that 
they  dared  not  answer. 

Never  did  the  world  hear  such  a  teacher;  never 
did  a  being  appear  on  earth  with  such  a  message, 
and  with  such  perfect  balance  of  proportion  be- 
tween teaching  and  living.  He  was  faultless  in 
both  and  could  challenge  His  enemies  to  convict 
Him  of  sin.  His  life  had  been  lived  in  the  open 
among  men  as  the  sinless  One,  and  hence  they  did 
not  accept  his  challenge.  All  have  ideals  to  which 
they  never  attain,  but  Christ  lived  and  was  what 
He  taught.  He  came  not  merely  to  teach  men  of 
God,  but  He  was  God  manifested  in  the  flesh  as 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         69 

He  claimed  to  be.  When  He  was  put  under  oath 
before  the  Sanhedrin  by  the  high  priest,  there  was 
nothing  found  affecting  His  lofty  character,  but 
He  was  charged  with  having  claimed  to  be  the 
Christ.  The  historical  record  of  the  Evangelist 
makes  this  very  clear,  for  "the  high  priest  said 
unto  Jesus:  I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that 
thou  tell  us  whether  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said." 
When  Jesus  acknowledged  that  He  was  the 
Christ  they  declared  Him  to  be  worthy  of  death 
because  He  had  spoken  blasphemy  as  they  claimed. 
St.  Mark  states  that  Jesus  gave  them  the  positive 
answer,  "I  am";  so  that  there  could  be  no  mistake 
as  to  the  testimony  that  He  bore  for  Himself.  Pi- 
late, the  Roman  governor  was  persuaded  that  it 
was  "for  envy  that  the  chief  priests  had  delivered 
Him  up,"  and  hence  he  sought  to  release  Him. 
When  the  chief  priests  stirred  up  the  people  that 
he  should  rather  release  Barabbas  unto  them,  "Pi- 
late said  unto  them,  Why,  what  evil  hath  He 
done?  And  they  cried  out  exceedingly.  Crucify 
Him."  St.  Luke  tells  us  that  Pilate  said  unto  them 
the  third  time,  "I  have  found  no  cause  of  death  In 
Him."  "The  Jews  answered  him.  We  have  a  law, 
and  by  that  law  He  ought  to  die,  because  He  made 
Himself  the  Son  of  God."  His  death  was  a  case 
of  judicial  murder,  for  the  chief  priests  incited  the 


70  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

mob  to  terrorize  Pilate  with  the  terrible  threat 
that  if  he  released  Jesus  he  was  not  Caesar's  friend. 
Pilate  feared  to  incur  the  displeasure  of  a  mighty 
Ccesar,  and  Jesus  appeared  powerless  and  friend- 
less, but  how  history  has  reversed  all  this?  In 
all  the  world  the  Emperor  Tiberius  has  no  one  to 
fear  nor  love  him,  whilst  no  name  is  so  potent  as 
the  name  of  Christ  Jesus,  and  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions of  followers  acknowledge  Him  as  the  King 
of  kings,  the  Lord  of  lords;  the  Saviour  of  the 
world. 

Luther  ever  saw  God  in  the  historic  Christ,  and 
he  only  knew  God  in  Christ  who  revealed  him, 
and  apart  from  Christ  he  could  not  know  God 
as  he  really  is  as  the  God  of  infinite  love  and 
mercy,  patient  and  forbearing,  ever  ready  to  for- 
give. Luther  was  unshaken  in  his  allegiance  to 
Christ  in  His  oneness  with  the  Father,  for  he 
wrote:  "For  if  we  are  certain  of  this:  that  what 
Jesus  thinks  and  speaks,  and  wills,  that  the  Father 
also  wills,  then  I  defy  all  that  may  fight  against 
me.  For  here  in  Christ  have  I  the  Father's 
heart  and  will."  In  Christ  he  found  and  knew 
God.  "We  must  neither  worship  nor  seek  after 
any  God,  save  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  See,  there  is  open  to  me  my  Father's 
heart,  will  and  work,  and  I  know  him." 

It  Is  a  mistake  when  some  men  speak  as  though 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         71 

we  should  place  the  supreme  emphasis  of  the  Gos- 
pel on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  for  is  it  not  true 
that  Christ's  Person  rather  than  such  teaching  is 
the  heart  of  the  Gospel?  John  makes  this  distinc- 
tion very  clear  when  he  declares  towards  the  close 
of  his  Gospel:  "but  these  things  are  written,  that 
ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  His 
name."  He  came  to  seek  and  to  save  the  lost.  He 
was  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world.  He  was  the  Way,  the  Truth  and  the 
Life.  He  was  the  resurrection  and  the  Life.  He 
gave  the  eternal  life,  and  He  called  all  humanity 
unto  Himself  that  they  might  find  rest  and  Peace 
to  their  souls.  He  declared  His  oneness  with  the 
Father;  and  we  are  persuaded  by  incontrovertible 
facts  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  for  otherwise 
certain  outstanding  and  undeniable  facts  remain 
unaccounted  for,  and  the  difficulties  encountered 
are  greater  than  those  that  the  believer  finds  in  the 
historic  faith. 

We  must  ever  keep  before  us  the  transcendent 
character  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  for  some 
have  been  led  astray  by  rationalizing  methods  that 
would  discover  only  another  Buddha  in  Jesus.  I 
freely  acknowledge  the  noblest  traits  of  self-denial 
in  Buddha  in  his  efforts  to  bring  about  some  much 
needed  reforms,  but  the  points  of  resemblance  be- 


72  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

tween  him  and  Jesus  are  so  superficial  that  they 
cannot  be  compared  but  only  contrasted.  I  need 
but  mention  a  few  traits  to  show  how  Immeasur- 
ably Christ  transcends  Buddha.  Jesus  claimed  al- 
ways to  do  the  will  of  God  His  Father  in  heaven, 
but  Buddha  had  no  God  In  his  system.  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  one  with  the  Father,  the  Son  of  God, 
but  Buddha  never  claimed  to  be  more  than  a  man, 
and  It  was  only  the  Irony  of  history  that  forced  his 
followers  to  make  him  a  God,  for  God  Is  a  human 
necessity  and  realizing  this,  the  necessary  alterna- 
tive was  to  elevate  Buddha  to  deity.  Buddha 
taught  that  there  was  no  place  for  prayer,  and  no 
one  who  could  forgive  sin;  but  Christ  taught  all 
men  to  pray,  and  He  openly  said  to  the  sinner; 
"Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee,"  and  He  declared 
Himself  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  the  giver 
of  eternal  life.  Christ  taught  the  personal  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  and  a  blessed  heaven  hereafter, 
but  Buddha  had  no  heaven  In  the  Christian  sense, 
for  according  to  the  authoritative  Ceylon  Buddhist 
Catechism:  "The  belief  in  an  immortal  personal 
soul,  i.e.,  an  Indestructible  and  eternal  separate 
substance  which  has  only  a  temporary  abode  In 
the  body,  is  regarded  by  Buddhists  as  a  heresy." 
We  live  In  a  rational  world  where  a  reason  can 
be  assigned  for  the  things  that  transpire,  and 
throughout  the  boundless  universe  every  effect  has 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         73 

a  cause.  Hence  the  moral  and  spiritual  results 
from  the  preaching  of  Christ  by  the  Church  In  the 
past  and  to-day  must  be  reckoned  with,  as  we  have 
endeavored  to  account  for  It  In  this  initial  chapter, 
for  these  marvelous  and  irresistible  Influences 
would  be  wholly  unintelligible  had  Christ  not  in- 
spired and  sustained  His  followers  by  a  power 
that  was  more  than  human.  We  have  endeavored 
to  account  for  the  origin,  growth  and  power  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  the  world,  with  the  established 
religions  against  the  infant  Church,  and  yet  it  an- 
tagonized them  all  by  refusing  to  compromise  with 
any;  and  it  conquered  all,  and  left  the  pagan  tem- 
ples and  altars  without  a  worshipper.  There  was  a 
severe  conflict  with  the  Mystery  religions  that  at 
times  sought  to  rival  Christianity  by  appropriating 
some  of  her  forms  and  teachings.  The  old  native 
Institution  of  the  Vestal  Virgins  flourished  for 
eleven  centuries.  The  six  Vestals  were  most  influ- 
ential In  the  political  affairs  of  Rome,  selected 
from  noble  families,  possessing  great  wealth,  en- 
trusted with  the  secrets  of  the  imperial  house,  and 
tending  the  sacred  fire  that  was  to  be  kept  perpetu- 
ally burning  on  the  hearth  of  Vesta  In  the  Forum 
Romanum,  for  It  symbolized  the  life  and  religion 
of  the  state  and  must  not  be  allowed  to  die  out. 
Their  religious  duties  were  strictly  observed  and 
the  severest  penalties  were  imposed  for  any  in- 


74  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

fraction.  They  enjoyed  the  favor,  protection  and 
support  of  the  Emperor,  and  their  influence  was 
far-reaching.  Their  position  was  a  striking  con- 
trast with  that  of  the  humble  Christians  who  could 
turn  to  their  Saviour  alone  for  help  in  time  of 
trouble.  But  there  is  another  striking  contrast; 
the  sacred  fires  of  the  Vestals  have  gone  out  for- 
ever, never  again  to  be  lighted,  whilst  Christ  the 
Light  of  the  world  has  lighted  up  the  darkest 
places  of  the  earth  with  His  beneficent  institutions 
for  the  healing  of  the  nations,  as  I  have  seen  in 
years  of  world  wide  travel.  I  would  have  you  con- 
trast with  this  direct  influence,  that  of  the  entire 
pantheon  of  Greece  and  Rome  that  held  sway 
when  Christ  came  preaching  the  everlasting  Gos- 
pel as  the  Good  News  of  God.  Gone  is  the  in- 
fluence of  all  their  gods  and  goddesses,  and  they 
have  no  place  in  the  religious  forces  of  to-day, 
and  no  living  power  in  the  hearts  of  men,  but  their 
place  is  confined  to  the  classics,  and  the  only  human 
interest  in  them  is  as  so  much  ancient  history  in  the 
comparative  study  of  religions,  but  Christ  still 
abides  in  the  hearts  of  His  followers,  inspiring 
them  to  noblest  deeds,  and  sustaining  them  by  the 
consciousness  of  His  living  presence  and  saving 
power.  Even  John  Morley  admits  that:  "The 
Christian  organizations  which  saved  Western  so- 
ciety from  dissolution  owe  all  to  St.  Paul,  Hilde- 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         75 

brand,  Luther,  Calvin;  but  the  spiritual  life  of  the 
West  during  all  these  generations  has  burnt  with 
the  pure  flame  first  lighted  by  the  sublime  mystic  of 
the  Galilean  Hills." 

I  am  aware  of  the  intellectual  difliculties  con- 
nected with  faith  in  the  Incarnation  and  the  Per- 
son of  Christ,  but  there  is  no  escape  in  turning 
away  from  Jesus,  for  the  intellectual  difficulties  of 
unbelief  are  still  greater.  Human  needs  remain, 
and  the  profound  mysteries  concerning  God,  the 
spiritual  and  eternal  world  press  upon  us  for  an 
answer.  To  whom  shall  we  go  if  not  to  Christ? 
No  one  ever  spoke,  and  lived  and  promised  as  He 
did.  The  Incarnation  was  neither  unreasonable 
nor  impossible.  If  man  is  God's  offspring  and 
made  in  his  own  image,  then  it  would  seem  reason- 
able as  well  as  possible  for  him  to  reveal  himself 
to  the  world  of  humanity  through  a  human  form, 
and  in  the  likeness  of  man,  as  he  appeared  in 
Christ  Jesus.  That  is  our  nearest  and  clearest 
view  of  God,  for  only  through  Christ  can  we  have 
a  clear  conception  of  the  being  and  character  of 
the  invisible  and  Infinite  God.  John  tells  us  that 
"God  is  love,"  but  in  Christ  we  have  the  love  of 
God  incarnate.  Before  calling  Lazarus  to  life  the 
people  who  saw  His  tears  said:  "Behold,  how  He 
loved  him;"  but  on  the  cross  He  gave  full  proof 
of  His  boundless  love  in  that  matchless  sacrifice 


76  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

that  speaks  louder  than  words.  God  must  reveal 
himself  through  a  person.  "Show  us  the  Father 
and  it  sufficeth  us."  "God  was  in  Christ  reconcil- 
ing the  world  unto  Himself."  The  sacrifice  made 
for  the  redemption  of  the  world  of  humanity  was 
not  unreasonable  when  we  remember  the  great  sac- 
rifice that  a  loving  mother  will  make  even  for  a 
worthless  child  that  has  brought  sorrow  and  shame 
upon  her.  But  we  all  are  God's  children,  and  the 
boundless  sacrifice  on  the  cross  was  not  made 
merely  for  one  lost  child,  but  for  the  countless  mil- 
lions of  all  mankind.  If  "God  is  love"  then  He 
could  endure  it  no  longer,  for  love  must  express 
itself  in  deeds,  and  no  sacrifice  is  too  great;  and 
hence  he  came  in  Christ  to  save.  When  He  went 
forth  to  Calvary,  bearing  the  cross,  it  looked  like 
a  lost  cause,  and  yet  contrary  to  all  appearances 
that  crucifixion  on  Golgotha  was  to  be  His  corona- 
tion, and  would  transform  the  disgraceful  cross 
into  the  most  hallowed  symbol  of  Christendom. 
Graetz  admits  this  astounding  fact  for  in  one  of 
his  volumes  on  the  History  of  the  Jews  he  states 
that  Jesus  is  "the  only  mortal  of  whom  one  can  say 
without  exaggeration  that  His  death  was  more  ef- 
fective than  His  life.  Golgotha,  the  place  of 
skulls,  became  a  new  Sinai."  As  a  historian, 
Graetz  should  have  endeavored  to  give  the  philos- 
ophy for  this  unique  fact  in  all  history,  for  there 
must  have  been  an  adequate  reason,  inasmuch  as 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         77 

every  effect  has  a  cause.  Had  his  religious  preju- 
dices not  prevented  him  from  referring  to  the  al- 
most contemporaneous  account  of  the  life  and 
death  of  Jesus  as  preserved  in  the  historic  Fourth 
Gospel,  he  might  have  found  the  reason  clearly 
stated  in  Christ's  own  words,  when  with  a  vision  of 
the  future  and  the  cross  on  Calvary  he  said;  "And 
I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 
men  unto  myself.  But  this  He  said,  signifying 
by  what  manner  of  death  He  should  die."  And 
again;  "Destroy  this  body,  and  in  three  days  I  will 
raise  it  up  again."  That  was  the  amazing  chal- 
lenge that  Christ  submitted  as  the  final  test,  and 
the  result  of  that  "third  day"  was  so  decisive  and 
overwhelming  that  no  appeal  could  be  taken  from 
that  supreme  court  of  inquiry.  The  facts  of  the 
resurrection  could  not  be  denied;  not  only  were 
they  incontrovertible,  but  it  was  the  risen  Christ 
from  the  dead  that  made  His  death  on  the  cross  so 
marvelously  effective.  It  was  the  power  of  that 
resurrection  that  gave  boldness  to  the  disciples, 
and  they  became  invincible  as  they  went  forth  like 
the  immortals  to  conquer  the  world  for  Christ. 
But,  had  Jesus  not  risen  from  the  dead,  then  that 
Fourth  Gospel  would  not  have  been  written,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  would  never  have  been  repeat- 
ed by  His  disciples.  It  was  the  overpowering  mas- 
tery of  the  risen  Christ  that  filled  His  disciples 
with  impassioned  love  and  devotion. 


78  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

It  was  that  resurrection  that  made  the  Ascension 
a  necessary  sequence,  and  invests  with  a  conceiv- 
able interpretation  the  momentous  words  that  He 
uttered  before  withdrawing  His  visible  presence 
from  His  disciples :  "All  authority  hath  been  given 
unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go  ye  therefore, 
and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit;  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  command  you :  and  lo  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
Hence  the  Person  of  Christ  as  the  miracle  of  his- 
tory will  continue  to  be  the  religious  theme  of 
every  age  as  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christi- 
anity. He  stands  unique  in  transcendent  and  in- 
comparable grandeur  among  the  greatest  that  ever 
appeared  on  earth.  Nay  more,  through  the  suc- 
ceeding centuries  He  has  met  the  prof  oundest  aspi- 
rations of  humanity,  and  satisfied  the  deepest  in- 
tellectual as  well  as  moral  and  spiritual  wants  of 
mankind,  in  every  age  and  country,  and  among 
people  of  most  diverse  temperament,  antecedents, 
and  social  life;  and  yet  assimilating  and  regenerat- 
ing them,  and  making  them  all  twice-born  new 
creatures  in  Christ  Jesus,  with  changed  thoughts, 
joys,  hopes,  purposes  and  living,  with  love  to  God, 
and  love  to  their  fellow  man. 

In  the  world's  Exposition  in  Paris  there  was  a 


The  Christ  of  the  Lord's  Supper         79 

great  exhibition  of  paintings  from  the  leading  art- 
ists of  Europe  and  America,  but  among  that  col- 
lection there  were  three  that  attracted  the  multi- 
tudes. They  were  large  canvasses  of  merit,  and 
yet  as  works  of  art  they  were  not  superior  to  many 
others,  but  it  was  their  particular  motiv  that  at- 
tracted and  held  the  thoughtful  observer,  and  it  is 
a  significant  fact  that  they  were  not  only  religious 
pictures,  but  in  each  instance  the  central  figure  was 
that  of  Christ,  and  with  a  brief  description  I  will 
close  this  chapter  on  the  things  that  must  be  ac- 
counted for  in  the  Person  of  Christ  Jesus.  It  was 
a  large  canvass,  and  in  the  foreground  lay  a 
French  soldier  across  his  war  horse,  for  both  had 
been  slain  on  the  field  of  battle,  and  the  brief  in- 
scription, "Pro  Patria"  told  the  sad  story;  he  had 
died  for  his  country.  The  head  of  the  patriot  who 
had  died  for  his  country,  was  resting  against  the 
foot  of  a  cross,  and  upon  that  cross  was  nailed  the 
Christ  of  history,  and  over  it  was  the  inscription : 
"Pro  Humanitate."  Christ  had  died  not  merely 
for  the  people  of  Palestine,  but  for  the  whole 
world  of  humanity,  "For  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  on  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life." 


II 

THE    PASSOVER 

THE  Synoptlsts  appear  to  Identify  the  Last 
Supper  with  the  Passover,  for  Mark  14:12 
states  that  It  was  "on  the  first  day  of  unleavened 
bread,  when  they  sacrificed  the  Passover."  The 
Gospel  of  St.  John  Is  just  as  explicit  In  state- 
ments that  Imply  that  It  was  before  the  Passover. 
Various  theories  have  been  proposed  to  reconcile 
the  discrepancies,  that  are  still  unsolvable,  until 
further  knowledge  may  possibly  afford  a  solution. 
Professor  Sanday  with  many  eminent  scholars, 
believes  that  the  Last  Supper  which  Jesus  ate  with 
His  disciples  was  not  the  regular  Passover,  but  a 
meal  by  anticipation  of  the  Jewish  celebration, 
"which  was  In  some  sort  a  keeping  of  the  Pass- 
over." According  to  Allen  In  his  Commentary  on 
Matthew,  the  Passover  fell  on  the  Sabbath,  and  It 
was  on  Thursday  evening  that  Christ  ate  the  Pass- 
over with  His  disciples.  He  earnestly  desired  to 
eat  the  Passover  with  His  disciples  before  His 
death  on  the  cross,  for  He  knew  of  the  secret  plans 
of  Judas  to  betray  Him.    It  was  not  the  actual  or 

80 


The  Passover  8 1 

technical  Passover  meal  of  the  14th  of  Nisan,  but 
anticipating  it  in  spirit  though  differing  in  time,  and 
the  fact  of  the  absence  of  the  paschal  lamb  for  that 
was  not  killed  until  later  at  the  temple  on  Friday. 
"But  there  was  bread  symbolizing  Christ's  body, 
and  that  sufficed."  Stone  thinks  that  even  the  Sy- 
noptists  contain  hints  that  the  Supper  was  not  a 
regular  Passover  meal.  Kent  also  holds  that  be- 
yond reasonable  doubt  the  Last  Supper  took  place 
on  Thursday  before  the  Passover  feast,  and  "even 
the  Marcan  narrative  records  the  fact  that  the 
Jewish  high  priests,  unprincipled  though  they  were, 
would  not  countenance  a  crucifixion  on  the  Pass- 
over day." 

According  to  Sir  Ramsay  the  Supper  took  place 
on  the  evening  of  March  18,29  A.D.,  and  the  Cru- 
cifixion in  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  and  that  the 
Synoptlsts  are  in  error  In  regarding  the  Feast  on 
Thursday  night  as  being  the  regular  Passover.  "It 
It  inconceivable  that  the  Jews  should  have  permit- 
ted the  Trial  of  Jesus  and  the  Crucifixion  of  Him 
and  of  the  two  criminals  to  take  place  after  the 
Passover  had  been  eaten  and  the  Feast  had  begun. 
It  was  the  Jews,  and  not  the  Romans,  who  caused 
the  arrest  and  all  its  consequences;  and  John  is  be- 
yond all  question  right,  even  according  to  the  Sy- 
noptic testimony.  In  asserting  that  the  two  robbers 
were  hurried  on  in  order  that  the  corpses  might  be 


82  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

disposed  of  before  the  Saturday  began,  i.e.,  before 
Sunset  on  the  Friday,  lest  the  great  day  should  be 
profaned.  The  words  of  Jesus  would  seem  to  in- 
dicate that  the  meal  which  He  ate  with  the  Twelve 
was  not  the  regular  Passover,  for  He  said  but  one 
by  anticipation,  for  according  to  Luke  He  said 
unto  His  disciples:  "With  desire  I  have  desired  to 
eat  this  Passover  with  you  before  I  suffer:  for  I 
say  unto  you,  I  shall  not  eat  it,  until  it  be  fulfilled 
in  the  kingdom  of  God." 

The  Passover  was  the  greatest  of  all  the  na- 
tional feasts  of  the  Jews,  and  inseparable  from 
their  religious  worship,  for  it  was  a  sacrificial  feast 
annually  observed  as  a  solemn  memorial  in  com- 
memoration of  their  deliverance  as  a  people  from 
the  bondage  of  their  oppressors  in  Egypt.  They 
would  make  the  greatest  sacrifice  rather  than  fore- 
go the  sacrificial  cult  of  the  lambs.  Hence  during 
the  Nabatean  siege  of  Jerusalem  in  the  year  65 
B.C.,  when  the  time  of  the  Passover  came,  Aristo- 
bulus  and  the  priests  who  were  shut  up  in  the  city 
temple  mount,  implored  their  countrymen  to  fur- 
nish the  necessary  paschal  lamb  for  celebrating  the 
feast,  and  they  paid  an  exhorbitant  price  that  was 
demanded,  though  to  the  shame  of  the  unscrupu- 
lous extortioners — who  after  receiving  the  money 
refused  to  furnish  the  animals  for  the  sacrifice.  I 
have  mentioned  this  striking  historical  incident  be- 


The  Passover  83 

cause  it  shows  the  supreme  Importance  that  the 
Jews  attached  to  the  sacrifices  at  the  Passover;  and 
it  gives  emphasis  to  the  remarkable  fact  that  with 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem  in  the 
year  70  that  elaborate  ceremonialism  was  never 
renewed.  Another  Temple  was  not  erected,  and 
the  once  indispensable  sacrifice  of  the  lambs  that 
was  always  connected  with  the  Jewish  Passover 
ceased  forever — with  the  exception  of  the  sporadic 
observance  by  the  small  sect  of  Samaritans,  the  de- 
scendants of  a  mixed  Jewish  and  despised  race, 
that  at  times  and  often  after  long  intervals,  encamp 
on  Mt.  Gerizim  to  keep  and  eat  the  Passover. 
When  Christian  churches  and  cathedrals  were  de- 
stroyed by  their  enemies  during  the  years  of  perse- 
cution— others  were  built  and  the  worship  con- 
tinued; but  not  so  with  the  Jewish  Temple,  and  its 
sacrificial  observances.  How  shall  we  account  for 
this  unique  fact  in  ecclesiastical  history?  With  the 
intense  loyal  conservatism  of  the  race  in  maintain- 
ing the  national  purity  of  their  people,  without  ad- 
mixture with  others;  and  in  view  of  their  influ- 
ence, wealth  and  continued  zeal  in  adhering  to  the 
letter  of  the  Law;  how  can  we  account  for  this  ab- 
solute discontinuance  of  the  greatest  of  all  their 
national  feasts;  the  one  in  which  it  was  insistent 
that  the  paschal  lambs  without  spot  or  blemish 
must  be  slain?    But  at  once  it  ceases,  and  without 


84  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

renewal.     There  must  be  an  adequate  reason  for 
such  a  stupendous  change. 

Of  the  three  characteristic  features  of  the 
Passover,  the  chief  one  was  that  of  sacri- 
ficing the  lambs,  but  as  we  have  seen,  with 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple  of  the  Jews,  the 
sacrificial  cultus  of  the  paschal  lambs  that  charac- 
terized the  Passover  ceased.  Why  was  not  an- 
other Temple  built,  and  the  sacrificial  ceremonies 
continued,  for  they  had  means  sufficient  to  erect 
another  of  adequate  proportions  for  all  the  sacri- 
ficial ceremonies;  and  no  greater  difficulties  to 
overcome  than  the  Christians  had,  but  when  one 
Church  was  razed  to  the  ground  by  the  pagan  per- 
secutors they  built  another.  Did  not  Christ  fore- 
see all  this,  and  did  He  not  have  it  in  mind  at  that 
Last  Supper  when  He  said:  "This  is  my  blood  of 
the  New  Covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many." 
These  words  seem  to  indicate  that  this  new  ordi- 
nance was  to  supersede  the  old  Levitical-Jewish 
Passover.  It  gives  special  meaning  and  emphasis 
to  that  word  New  in  this  connexion,  and  it  stands 
out  in  striking  contrast  with  the  momentous  events 
soon  to  be  enacted  on  Calvary.  For  "Christ  hav- 
ing come  a  high  priest  .  .  .  not  through  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  through  His  own  blood 
entered  into  once  for  all  into  the  holy  place,  hav- 
ing obtained  eternal  redemption.    For  if  the  blood 


The  Passover  85 

of  goats  and  bulls,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprink- 
ling them  that  have  been  defiled,  sanctify  unto  the 
cleanness  of  the  flesh:  how  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  of- 
fered Himself  without  blemish  unto  God,  cleanse 
your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  liv- 
ing God.  And  for  this  cause  He  is  the  mediator 
of  a  New  Covenant:  "For  our  Passover  also  hath 
been  sacrificed,  even  Christ;"  and  hence  it  is  not 
the  lamb  which  held  the  chief  place  in  that  Pass- 
over feast  of  the  New  Covenant,  but  the  bread 
that  Christ  exalted  in  the  new  paschal  feast;  when 
He  was  about  to  offer  Himself  on  the  cross  once 
for  all  as  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world. 

Never  in  all  my  study  did  I  get  such  a 
vivid  and  realistic  impression  of  that  great 
annual  feast  of  the  Passover,  as  when  for  hours  I 
beheld  from  beginning  to  the  end  the  celebration 
of  the  Samaritan  Passover  on  Mt.  Gerizim.  That 
unique  ceremony  by  the  smallest  sect  of  an  ancient 
religious  observance  is  of  unusual  interest  to  the 
Bible  student,  for  it  is  the  only  Jewish  institution 
that  has  come  down  to  us  from  Mosaic  times  with 
its  original  and  elaborate  ceremonials,  repeated  in 
all  their  essential  features,  though  differing  In 
some  minor  details.  The  Samaritans  conform  to 
the  letter  of  the  Law,  and  rigidly  observe  the  an- 


86  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

cient  sacrificial  ceremonies  enjoined  by  the  Law 
just  as  the  more  orthodox  Jews  did  until  the  time 
of  the  destruction  of  their  Temple.  The  Samari- 
tan Jews  keep  the  Passover  on  the  evening  before 
the  first  full  moon  in  the  Greek  Nisan  (April), 
but  occasionally  on  the  afternoon  preceding.  Ordi- 
narily the  ceremonies  begin  at  sunset  and  continue 
until  late  at  night,  even  to  midnight,  but  there  are 
exceptions  as  to  the  time  though  rare,  when  they 
begin  at  noon  and  then  by  sunset  the  ceremonies 
are  practically  over.  Fortunately,  this  convenient 
time  for  observing  and  photographing  the  chief 
features  occurred  in  1904.  It  was  on  the  morning 
of  April  29,  1904,  that  we  made  the  zigzag  ascent 
of  Mt.  Gerizim.  We  were  courteously  received 
by  the  High  Priest  Jacob  who  received  us  into  his 
tent  where  we  rested  during  the  intervals  in  the 
services;  and  ate  our  noonday  and  evening  lunch- 
eons without  any  embarrassment  to  him  because  of 
the  presence  of  Food  that  was  not  unleavened.  He 
had  good  features  and  was  communicative,  claim- 
ing to  be  of  the  Aaronic  descent  as  a  valid  claim 
to  his  high  priestly  office.  With  much  Interest  and 
reverence  he  opened  their  most  precious  treasure, 
the  sacred  codex  of  the  Pentateuch,  with  a  vener- 
able antiquity,  most  probably  antedating  by  some 
centuries  any  known  Hebrew  Manuscript.  The 
large  ancient  roll  was  enclosed  within  a  heavy,  em- 


The  Passover  87 

bossed  silver  case,  protected  by  a  richly  embroid- 
ered crimson  satin  covering. 

When  we  looked  over  the  40  tents  of  that  en- 
campment,  where  a  week  had  been  spent  In  prepa- 
ration, we  pictured  to  our  minds  the  great  annual 
feast  that  was  celebrated  at  Jerusalem,  for  with  the 
historic  background  of  that  ancient  city  and  remote 
times,  and  with  an  imagination  quickened  by  the 
scene  before  us  we  could  easily  behold  tens  of 
thousands  of  the  faithful  Jews  as  they  came  up  to 
their  Holy  City,  not  only  from  the  different  parts 
of   Palestine,  but  from  the  distant  countries   of 
Egypt,  Asia  Minor  and  far  away  Babylon  to  en- 
gage in  similar  solemn  services,  whilst  a  million  or 
more  dwelt  in  temporary  booths  on  the  slopes  of 
Olivet,  and  in  the  public  places  and  in  the  adjacent 
villages.    The  vast  numbers  of  people  who  could 
not  attend  because  of  distance  and  other  disabili- 
ties still  longed  after  Jerusalem,  for  they  were 
loyal  to  their  faith  and  craved  the  blessings  of  the 
feast  of  the  Passover,  and  hence  they  sent  the  half 
shekel  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  temple  serv- 
ices.   It  Is  true  that  the  City  of  Jerusalem  with  its 
hallowed  associations  was  not  there  on  Gerizim, 
nor  the  Holy  Temple  with  its  high  priests  and 
scores  of  assistants  nor  the  thousands  of  animals 
for  sacrifice,  nor  yet  the  countless  number  of  pil- 
grims who  had  come  to  the  feast. 


88  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

The  tent  of  the  high  priest  Jacob  was  very  plain 
as  well  as  all  its  appointments,  for  as  he  told  us 
his  people  were  very  poor.  Whilst  he  wore  a 
loose  outer  dark  robe  of  a  purple  shade,  that  dis- 
tinguished him  from  the  others,  the  long  under 
garment  reaching  to  his  heels  was  plain  and  once 
white,  but  now  faded  and  made  of  a  very  cheap 
material  like  cotton,  but  possibly  linen.  The  faded 
border  of  the  brownish  coat  that  once  marked  his 
position,  had  evidently  seen  service  and  lost  its 
original  color,  and  his  head  covering  was  perhaps 
the  most  distinctive  mark,  except  the  darker  ma- 
terial and  particular  cut  of  his  garment.  We  ob- 
served that  he  did  not  wear  the  phylacteries  when 
reading  the  sacred  scriptures  as  we  had  seen  prac- 
ticed by  the  Jewish  readers  in  their  Synagogues  in 
Jerusalem.  He  told  us  that  the  Mohammedan  of- 
ficials in  Nablus  had  refused  to  send  the  police- 
men or  military  officers  to  preserve  order  and  pro- 
tect them  against  any  intrusion  during  their  cere- 
monies, and  they  had  no  redress,  for  they  were  few 
in  number,  and  without  political  influence  and  too 
poor  to  pay  the  price  necessary  to  secure  the  pres- 
ence of  such  a  safe-guard  as  an  officer  of  the  law, 
although  the  subsequent  demonstrations  on  the 
part  of  lawless  ones  showed  that  it  was  greatly 
needed. 

There  was  no  altar  at  the  Samaritan  Passover, 


The  Passover  89 

but  near  by  is  the  rocky  platform  or  original  altar, 
and  is  still  the  holy  of  holies  to  the  devout  Samari- 
tan who  approaches  it  with  reverence,  for  it  pos- 
sesses for  him  all  the  sanctity  of  a  remote  tradition 
of  the  primitive  celebration  of  the  Passover  many 
centuries  ago. 

The  place  for  the  present  observance  of  the 
feast  is  about  a  half  a  mile  away  and  it  is  a  ques- 
tion why  they  abandoned  the  sacred  altar.  It 
would  seem  more  natural  for  them  to  celebrate  the 
Passover  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  temple,  and  yet 
they  doubtless  have  a  reason  for  the  change,  pos- 
sibly because  of  the  profane  intrusion  and  at  times 
disorderly  interference  of  the  Moslems,  which 
might  appear  like  sacrilege  if  perpetrated  on  the 
Holy  place  that  had  been  hallowed  by  their  remote 
ancestors,  as  the  pake  for  sacrifice.  Possibly  too, 
there  may  be  a  reason  that  grew  out  of  the  fact 
that  for  a  long  time  they  were  not  allowed  to  main- 
tain the  annual  celebration  of  the  Passover  on 
Gerizim,  but  observed  it  without  ostentation 
quietly  in  their  homes,  and  when  they  renewed  it 
on  the  Mount  they  selected  a  less  venerated,  and 
more  sheltered  place  on  lower  ground. 

It  is  only  within  the  last  70  years  or  less,  in  re- 
cent times,  that  they  again  have  been  able  to  cele- 
brate their  Passover  on  Gerizim,  and  even  now  at 
times  their  public  ceremonies  are  interfered  with 


90  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

in  a  most  disgraceful  manner,  but  they  bear  the  in- 
sult with  patient  forbearance  lest  any  resistance 
should  furnish  the  coveted  excuse  for  violence  and 
bloodshed  on  the  part  of  their  overbearing  Mos- 
lem neighbors  who  so  greatly  out  number  them. 
The  ancient  right  had  been  denied  them  by  the 
Turic  for  a  time  and  they  were  obliged  to  observe 
the  Passover  under  unfavorable  circumstances  in 
their  narrow  quarters  in  Nablous. 

As  we  arrived  a  long  time  before  the  hour  for 
the  Passover,  and  before  the  crowd  appeared,  we 
improved  our  opportunity  to  study  the  ground  and 
to  examine  the  preparation  for  the  coming  feast. 
We  saw  them  heating  the  pit  or  well  which  was 
walled  around  and  had  been  used  for  many  years 
and  into  which  they  threw  quantities  of  coarse 
grass,  weeds  and  brushwood  until  It  was  heated 
hot  as  an  oven  and  in  this  the  dressed  lambs  were 
to  be  roasted. 

The  high  priest  informed  me  that  the  total  num- 
ber of  the  Samaritans  was  about  200,  a  larger 
number  than  that  usually  given  by  writers,  al- 
though we  may  take  the  word  "about"  with  some 
latitude  of  meaning.  However,  from  the  number 
of  tents  that  I  counted,  40  in  all,  we  might  conclude 
that  they  had  provided  for  as  many  as  200  per- 
sons. Besides  a  few  may  have  been  too  feeble  from 
age  and  sickness  to  come  up  from  the  city  to  spend 


The  Passover  91 

the  week  on  the  mountain,  and  whilst  I  am  confi- 
dent that  I  did  not  see  as  many  as  75  persons  pres- 
ent at  the  ceremonies  or  perhaps  not  more  than  50, 
yet  we  must  make  allowance  for  the  women  and  the 
children  who  with  few  exceptions  remained  in  the 
tents.  Unfortunately  for  the  future  of  this  small 
sect  the  proportion  of  the  males  Is  greatly  In  excess 
of  the  females,  and  as  the  Jew^s  have  rejected  all 
overtures  to  Inter-marry  with  them,  their  future 
seems  somewhat  precarious. 

The  present  temporary  enclosure  or  so  called 
tabernacle  on  Mt.  Gerizim  In  which  they  celebrate 
the  Passover,  is  open  to  the  heavens  and  all  the 
ceremonies  are  exposed  to  the  profane  gaze  and 
even  Intrusion  of  the  disorderly  Mohammedan 
rabble,  for  it  consists  of  a  quadrangle  merely  en- 
closed by  an  uneven  wall  of  rough  and  loose  stones, 
about  4  ft.  high.  It  was  located  near  the  southeast 
end  of  the  camp  and  was  divided  by  a  low  partial 
wall  Into  two  equal  portions,  and  in  the  one  nearest 
the  camp  was  a  trench  about  8  ft.  In  length  In  which 
a  hot  fire  was  burning  and  over  it  hung  two  large 
kettles,  filled  with  boiling  water  to  scald  the  lambs 
as  soon  as  killed  so  as  to  remove  the  fleece.  It 
was  around  these  cauldrons  that  the  lambs  were 
killed,  and  just  outside  the  wall,  at  a  distance  of  a 
few  rods  was  a  heated  oven  for  roasting  the  lambs. 
Outside  the  enclosure  and  in  the  direction  of  the 


92  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

tents  were  a  dozen  or  less  one  year  old  lambs  hud- 
dled together,  preparatory  for  the  sacrifice.  These 
lambs  had  all  been  selected  from  the  flock  with 
special  care,  for  according  to  the  ancient  law  they 
must  be  physically  perfect,  that  is  without  spot  or 
blemish,  and  outwardly  they  all  seemed  to  have  an- 
swered the  most  rigid  requirements  for  there  were 
no  lame  or  scrawny  ones  among  that  select  group, 
and  yet  there  was  an  imperfect  one  among  them  as 
was  subsequently  discovered,  and  it  was  rejected 
with  a  sort  of  abhorrence  as  though  it  were  a  sacri- 
lege, to  present  such  an  offering  for  sacrifice  al- 
though the  blemish  was  a  very  trivial  and  appar- 
ently superficial  one. 

The  entire  quadrangle  was  perhaps  60  ft.  long 
by  20  ft.  wide  and  the  farther  half  was  reserved 
for  the  more  strictly  religious  services,  which  con- 
sisted in  reading  from  their  sacred  books,  and 
though  this  ritual  was  divided  into  different 
courses,  several  hours  at  least  were  occupied  at 
different  times  in  this  part  of  the  ceremonies. 

It  was  after  the  sun  had  reached  the  zenith  and 
the  noon  hour  had  passed  before  the  high  priest 
left  his  tent,  followed  by  the  men  who  had  as- 
sembled, and  together  they  proceeded  to  their  place 
in  the  farther  part  of  the  enclosure.  The  high 
priest  knelt  on  a  small  rug  facing  the  east  and  look- 
ing toward  the  site  of  their  ancient  Temple.    The 


The  Passover  93 

women  and  the  children  also  with  few  exceptions 
remained  in  the  tent.  The  high  priest  with  solemn 
composure  raised  his  eyes  and  then  suddenly  be- 
gan to  repeat  the  sacred  account  of  the  institution 
of  the  Passover  on  that  memorable  night  of  Is- 
rael's departure  from  Egypt.  The  members  sat 
and  then  knelt  with  faces  to  the  ground,  and  then 
arose  and  stood  for  a  time,  suiting  the  action  to 
the  word  according  to  the  portions  read.  They  all 
chanted  or  repeated  from  memory  with  few  ex- 
ceptions and  with  great  rapidity  and  emotion. 
Whilst  this  feature  detracted  from  the  dignity  and 
reverence  of  the  occasion,  perhaps  it  was  none  the 
less  impressive  because  of  the  tumultuous  haste, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  a  constant  reminder  of  the  haste 
and  confusion  on  the  night  of  its  original  institu- 
tion. 

Whilst  the  high  priest  chanted  appropriate  pass- 
ages from  the  Torah,  they  changed  their  posture 
frequently  and  suddenly  from  kneeling  to  standing, 
and  at  times  gesticulated  violently,  as  if  under 
great  mental  excitement,  stroking  their  beards  or 
breasts,  and  drawing  their  hands  over  their  faces, 
perhaps  in  deep  reverence  at  the  mention  of  the 
name  of  Jehovah.  The  high  priest  alternated  his 
posture  at  times,  but  with  slow  movement. 

Whilst  they  were  reciting  the  historical  account 
with  vehement  fervor,  seven  men  entered  the  space 


94  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

in  great  haste,  dragging  the  seven  lambs  that  had 
been  selected  for  the  Passover.  They  were  all  left 
standing  together  in  the  corner  and  so  near  the 
high  priest  that  he  could  have  touched  the  nearest 
one  with  his  hand.  Back  of  him  were  grouped 
about  40  or  50  men,  with  white  robes,  but  some 
wore  dark  overcoats.  No  doubt  the  particular 
number  of  lambs  used  would  be  regulated  by  the 
number  of  people  to  eat  the  Passover.  Perhaps  an 
hour  was  taken  up  in  this  first  part  of  the  ceremon- 
ies. When  the  high  priest  read:  "And  the  whole 
assembly  of  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael shall  kill  it  in  the  evening:"  then  all  suddenly 
arose  and  certain  ones  seized  the  Pascal  lambs 
that  had  hitherto  been,  uninterested  observers, 
some  standing  and  others  lying  on  the  ground  dur- 
ing all  the  noise,  and  unconcerned  for  they  were 
unconscious  of  the  part  they  were  to  play  in  the 
ceremonies.  But  in  a  moment  these  innocent  lambs 
were  not  merely  "led,"  but  quickly  rushed  to  the 
slaughter  in  the  adjoining  end  of  the  enclosure, 
around  the  cauldrons.  They  were  thrown  vio- 
lently upon  their  sides  and  men  held  them  firmly 
on  the  ground.  In  the  meantime  all  had  crowded 
into  this  quarter,  and  the  curious  spectators  were 
crowding  them  still  more,  almost  to  the  provoca- 
tion of  violence,  for  each  one  was  intent  upon  see- 
ing every  feature  of  the  ceremony.    During  all  this 


The  Passover  95 

time  the  high  priest  remained  at  his  place  reciting 
from  the  Pentateuch.  The  signal  for  the  bloody 
sacrifice  to  begin  was  when  he  read  the  words  from 
Exodus  xii :  5,  6,  "Your  lamb  shall  be  without 
blemish,  a  male  a  year  old:  ye  shall  take  it  from 
the  sheep  or  from  the  goats :  and  ye  shall  keep  it 
until  the  14th  day  of  the  same  month:  and  the 
whole  assembly  of  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall 
kill  it."  As  these  last  words  were  repeated  the 
assistant  hurried  around  that  circle  and  cut  the 
throat  of  each  of  the  lambs.  He  drew  the  knife 
quickly  back  and  forth  several  times  so  as  thor- 
oughly to  sever  the  arteries,  and  the  animals  soon 
bled  to  death  without  any  noise  and  with  little  vis- 
ible struggle. 

There  was  tremendous  excitement  during  all 
this,  because  of  their  excessive  haste  and  the  crowd- 
ing of  the  spectators,  for  all  wanted  the  nearest 
view  possible.  The  scene  seemed  rather  a  cruel 
performance  for  sensitive  nerves  and  had  rather 
the  appearance  of  a  slaughter  house,  as  compared 
with  the  essentially  spiritual  worship  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  However,  in  charity  we  must  recog- 
nize the  power  of  religious  education  which  gives 
each  one  his  own  point  of  view,  and  which  has 
changed  the  Christian  conceptions  of  worship 
from  those  that  prevailed  among  the  Jews  at  the 
time  of  Christ's  sojourn  upon  the  earth,  when  the 


g6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Apostle  Paul  himself  was  one  of  the  most  devout 
and  zealous  adherents  of  the  same  blood  cere- 
monial, and  not  only  entered  his  vehement  protest 
against  any  seeming  interference  with  it,  but  even 
thought  that  he  did  God  service  in  persecuting  the 
followers  of  Christ.  I  distinctly  recalled  the  words 
that  Jesus  addressed  to  the  woman  of  Samaria  at 
Jacob's  well;  "God  is  a  spirit:  and  they  that  wor- 
ship him  must  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth." 

There  was  much  for  study  and  reflection  in  the 
strange,  rapid,  loud  and  accentuated  manner  of  the 
worship.  They  employed  tremendous  energy  in 
their  hurried  and  tumultuous  haste,  for  everything, 
seemed  to  have  been  done  in  a  hurry  and  under 
pressure  of  great  excitement.  This  was  true  of  the 
entire  religious  service  of  chanting  and  repeating 
their  sacred  scriptures  with  powerful  expulsive  utT 
terances,  and  every  movement  that  followed 
whether  the  seizing,  dragging,  and  killing  of  the 
lambs,  the  process  of  scalding  them,  the  removing 
of  the  fleece  and  the  right  foreleg  and  entrails, 
and  the  violent  throwing  of  these  into  the  fire,  spit- 
ting the  carcasses,  and  transferring  them  to  the 
tent,  and  later  dropping  them  into  the  hot  oven — 
all  was  done  in  haste. 

As  soon  as  the  lambs  had  been  killed  they  took 
large  dippers  of  boiling  water  from  the  huge  ket- 
tles and  poured  it  on  them,  and  at  once  with  great 


The  Passover  97 

haste  the  men  crowded  over  them  to  remove  the 
fleece.  Then  the  hamstrings  were  slashed  and  a 
stick  of  strong  wood  was  run  through  and  in  this 
position  the  animal  was  suspended  by  the  ends  of 
the  piece  of  wood  resting  upon  the  shoulders  of 
two  men.  Then  the  right  shoulder  was  cut  off  and 
the  entrails  removed  and  both  were  cast  into  the 
fire  and  burned.  The  shoulder  was  not  given  to 
the  high  priest  according  to  the  ancient  custom,  at 
least  I  saw  the  most  of  them  thrown  into  the  fire 
as  though  rejected.  The  liver  was  preserved  with 
the  heart  and  these  were  later  placed  within  the 
carcass.  Each  animal  had  been  carefully  examined 
in  the  dressing  to  see  that  there  was  no  blemish 
among  them.  All  the  lambs  had  been  previously 
selected  with  special  care  so  as  to  fulfill  the  strict 
requirement  of  the  law,  and  no  outwar'd  defect  was 
apparent.  However,  each  animal  was  still  fur- 
ther carefully  scrutinized  when  dressing  it,  for  the 
discovery  of  any  physical  imperfection  would  ren- 
der it  unfit  for  the  Passover.  The  ist,  2d  and  3d 
were  pronounced  worthy  for  the  sacrifice,  but  there 
was  a  sudden  excitement  when  the  4th  had  been 
subjected  to  a  critical  examination,  for  that  re- 
vealed a  strange  natal  blemish,  a  slight  imperfec- 
tion in  its  organism,  lacking  one  of  the  testes,  and 
after  a  brief  consultation  they  referred  the  case  to 
the  high  priest,  who  had  remained  in  his  quarters 


98  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

at  the  other  end  of  the  tabernacle,  reading  the  ap- 
propriate lessons.  He  came  with  suppressed  emo- 
tion but  with  evident  mortification  because  of  the 
failure  in  not  having  detected  the  unworthy  lamb 
at  an  earlier  stage,  instead  of  its  having  escaped 
their  discovery  until  this  hour,  for  they  had  ac- 
cepted it  through  that  long  religious  ceremony  and 
it  must  now  be  rejected  and  another  substituted. 
The  high  priest  carefully  referred  to  the  copy  of 
the  Pentateuch  which  he  held  in  his  hand,  and  then 
again  examined  the  carcass  in  the  light  of  the  di- 
vine requirement,  taking  considerable  time,  for 
with  the  sacred  canon  he  was  now  most  deliberate, 
and  then  consulted  with  his  associates.  I  can  still 
see  his  intent  examination  and  interested  look,  and 
keen  disappointment  and  embarrassment  because 
of  the  absence  of  that  small  male  member  that 
caused  so  much  trouble,  but  when  the  decision  was 
rendered  the  men  seized  the  lamb  as  though  it  had 
been  morally  responsible  for  its  slight  defect  and 
with  looks  of  indignation  they  became  more  de- 
monstrative than  ever,  as  they  hurried  it  away  and 
threw  it  with  fury  into  the  fire,  where  it  was 
burned,  for  it  had  been  rejected  as  unfit  for  the 
Passover. 

I  see  that  picture  still  in  all  its  vivid  real- 
ism as  though  I  had  witnessed  it  but  yesterday, 
and  it  gave  me  a  commentary  on  the  kind  of  ani- 


The  Passover  99 

mals  that  were  to  be  offered  for  sacrifice,  and  it 
produced  a  deep  impression  sucfi  as  I  fiad  never 
realized  before.  I  recalled  the  scathing  rebuke  of 
the  prophet  Malachi  against  the  people  who 
brought  the  blind,  the  lame  and  the  sick  animals, 
"a  blemished  thing"  for  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord. 
As  the  rejected  animal  had  been  thrown  into  the' 
fire,  several  men  rushed  out  where  a  few  lambs 
had  been  kept  in  reserve  for  such  a  possible  but 
unexpected  emergency,  and  after  carefully  exam- 
ining them,  so  as  not  to  have  a  repetition  of  a  lamb 
with  a  blemish,  they  dragged  another  into  the  en- 
closure and  after  the  high  priest  had  made  a  fur- 
ther examination  and  whilst  holding  a  knife  be- 
tween his  teeth,  at  a  given  signal  the  lamb  was 
thrown  on  its  side,  and  after  he  had  carefully  se- 
parated the  wool  at  the  neck,  he  himself  cut  the 
throat  of  the  victim  getting  some  of  the  blood 
stains  on  his  left  hand  and  wrist. 

After  the  lambs  had  been  thoroughly  dressed, 
a  slender  pole  for  spitting  the  animal  lengthwise 
passed  through  the  hamstrings  of  both  hind  legs 
that  had  been  placed  across  each  other  and  this 
held  them  in  position,  whilst  a  transverse  piece  of 
board  fastened  to  the  end  next  to  the  head  prevent- 
ed the  carcass  from  slipping  off  when  once  trans- 
ferred to  the  oven.  In  the  meantime  they  were 
carried  to  the  tent  near  the  place  of  the  high 


100  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

priest,  having  been  thoroughly  salted  within  and 
without  and  there  they  remained  until  the  oven  was 
sufficiently  heated.  Just  outside  the  enclosure  on 
the  northeast  side  was  the  pit  about  4  ft.  in  diam- 
eter and  9  ft.  deep  which  had  been  heated  for 
some  hours.  At  a  given  signal  and  amid  great  ex- 
citement seven  men  came  from  the  tent  within  the 
Tabernacle  each  holding  aloft  the  lamb  by  the 
pole  that  had  transfixed  it.  They  bore  them  in 
haste  and  the  crowd  pressed  upon  them  as  they 
approached  the  pit,  and  stood  around  it,  holding 
the  lambs  over  the  oven  that  was  to  roast  them. 
The  director  of  ceremonies  gave  the  signal  and 
at  once  all  were  expected  to  drop  the  lambs  to- 
gether into  the  oven,  but  in  the  midst  of  the  haste 
and  excitement,  a  young  man  was  slow  and  did  not 
let  his  go  until  the  others  had  dropped  in  and  as  a 
result  there  was  some  difficulty  in  crowding  his 
down  between  the  rest. 

I  clearly  saw  it  all,  for  I  occupied  my  command- 
ing position  on  the  low  wall  of  the  enclosure 
throughout  the  entire  ceremonies  of  the  day,  mak- 
ing copious  notes  and  using  my  kodak  to  the  best 
advantage.  I  greatly  regret  that  my  photos  are 
not  as  satisfactory  as  I  would  like  to  have  them, 
for  the  light  was  not  favorable,  and  the  exceed- 
ingly rapid  movements  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
ceremony,  and  the  excessive  crowding  of  so  many 


The  Passover  loi 

into  a  small  spaste  made  it  exceedingly  difficult  to 
get  even  the  results  that  I  did.  The  participants 
always  seemed  to  be  impelled  with  tumultuous 
haste. 

As  soon  as  all  the  lambs  had  been  crowded  into 
the  pit  a  hurdle  was  dropped  over  them  and  then 
several  sacks  of  green  grass  were  emptied  in,  the 
sharp  ends  of  the  poles  extending  through  the  trel- 
lis above  the  surface.  The  men  and  boys  collected 
soil  and  threw  it  in  until  the  pit  was  full,  when 
they  took  some  earth  that  had  been  mixed  with 
water  to  the  consistency  of  clay,  and  covered  the 
mouth  of  the  oven  so  as  to  keep  in  the  heat,  round- 
ing the  top  like  a  dome,  as  they  plastered  it  with 
their  bare  hands  and  then  wiped  them  on  their 
garments  in  true  Oriental  fashion. 

Several  hours  were  necessary  to  roast  the  Iambs 
and  we  anxiously  waited  for  the  opening  of  that 
oven,  for  we  wanted  to  see  them  eat  as  well  as 
prepare  and  kill  the  Passover. 

There  was  another  long  religious  ceremony  con- 
ducted by  the  high  priest  in  which  the  men  united. 
This  continued  until  nearly  sunset,  when  at  a  given 
signal  in  great  haste  they  went  to  the  oven,  and 
with  their  hands  scratched  away  the  covering  of 
baked  earth,  removed  the  grass  and  hurdle,  and 
then  drew  out  the  7  poles  or  stakes  with  the 
roasted  animals  or  that  portion  of  the  meat  that 


102  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

still  adhered  to  the  skeleton,  for  the  lambs  had 
been  so  thoroughly  roasted  that  large  chunks  had 
fallen  off  and  were  in  the  bottom  of  the  pit.  One 
of  the  young  men  jumped  in,  his  head  disappear- 
ing below  the  surface  and  he  quickly  collected  the 
fragments  into  a  sort  of  basket.  When  he  came 
out  of  the  steaming  oven  he  was  covered  with 
perspiration  and  red  as  a  parboiled  lobster.  All 
the  meat  was  placed  on  seven  mat-like  baskets  and 
these  were  borne  before  the  high  priest  who  had 
occupied  his  regular  station.  I  counted  about  50 
persons,  all  were  men  except  a  few  boys.  They 
sat  in  order,  squatting  on  their  feet,  and  arranged 
before  them  were  seven  large  and  plain  tin  plat- 
ters, about  two  feet  in  diameter,  heaped  up  with 
green  herbs  and  portions  of  the  bitter  herbs  were 
rolled  in  small  wads  in  the  unleavened  bread,  one 
of  which  was  passed  to  me.  The  green  herbs  had 
been  chopped  in  small  pieces.  The  folded  mats 
that  served  for  baskets  in  bearing  the  roast  lamb 
from  the  oven  were  now  spread  out  flat  before 
them,  and  the  savory  meat  smoked  from  the  heat 
that  had  burned  it  almost  black.  The  unleavened 
bread  was  like  the  thin  wafer  kind  found  every- 
where in  Palestine,  resembling  our  dough  after  it 
has  been  rolled  out  for  the  pie,  but  much  darker 
and  only  two  thirds  baked.  It  is  a  convenient  form 
for  the   Oriental  table,   for   it   can  be  torn  and 


The  Passover  103 

rolled  into  any  size  and  shape  and  becomes  a  use- 
ful substitute  for  a  fork  and  spoon  in  eating  from 
a  common  dish. 

Before  they  began  to  eat  the  Passover  the  high 
priest  introduced  the  readings  from  the  sacred  rec- 
ords of  their  fathers  and  they  all  joined  in  chant- 
ing with  vehement  haste,  and  at  times  turned  their 
heads  about  with  a  significant  movement,  and  their 
eyes  were  full  of  expression  as  they  nodded  assent 
to  the  statements  concerning  certain  events  in  their 
national  history,  as  they  were  then  reciting  them. 
There,  all  was  reenacted  before  our  eyes,  and  we 
saw  the  ancient  Jews  eating  the  Passover  not 
merely  in  imagination  from  what  we  once  had  read 
but  from  what  we  now  actually  saw,  for  here  in 
the  presence  of  the  high  priest  we  beheld  the  lineal 
descendants  of  the  old  Jewish  race,  although  with 
some  remote  admixture  of  blood  from  the  Assyr- 
ian colonists,  prepared  to  eat  the  Passover  as  their 
fathers  ate  it  several  thousand  years  ago.  That 
was  the  Jewish  Passover  that  had  come  down 
through  the  centuries  from  Mosaic  times,  and  in 
all  its  essential  features  was  the  same  that  the  Is- 
raelites had  witnessed  of  old,  and  I  had  clear  vis- 
ions of  that  distant  past  and  the  history  of  these 
memorable  ceremonies  which  had  been  preserved 
to  our  day  and  these  were  now  being  observed  by 
a  small  remnant  with  all  the  deep  fervor  of  their 


104  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

religious  belief.  They  realized  its  religious  sig- 
nificance and  the  importance  of  keeping  this  Pass- 
over, for  their  souls  seemed  to  have  been  stirred 
and  hence  it  was  no  mere  acting,  but  the  outward 
expression  of  their  deepest  conviction.  They  ap- 
peared at  least  as  though  they  were  filled  with  the 
spirit  of  that  institution,  and  all  the  insults  and 
disturbances  of  their  enemies  could  not  interfere 
with  their  zealous  observance.  They  were  moved 
with  deep  emotion,  and  their  highly  dramatic  ac- 
tion was  expressive  of  their  feeling,  for  they  made 
vigorous  and  significant  signs  with  their  hands, 
that  were  full  of  meaning  as  they  recalled  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  during  that  memorable  night  in 
Egypt.  They  shook  their  heads,  signalled  with 
their  hands,  often  stroking  their  beard  or  chin, 
bowing  their  head,  passing  the  open  or  palm  of  the 
hand  across  the  face  and  then  bringing  it  down  vio- 
lently about  the  chin  as  if  striking  a  phantom 
beard,  for  a  real  one  was  generally  absent.  All 
continued  chanting  for  a  long  time,  and  I  longed 
for  the  end  to  come  so  that  I  might  see  them  eat 
the  Passover. 

The  signs  of  the  approaching  end  seemed  near 
when  there  was  an  unusual  outburst  of  excessively 
loud  and  vigorous  chanting  that  had  been  pro- 
longed for  several  minutes,  and  which  seemed  ex- 
hausting, but  the  climax  had  not  been  reached. 


The  Passover  105 

However,  I  felt  some  relief  when  the  chanting 
ceased  and  the  son  of  the  high  priest  brought  a 
ewer  and  basin  for  his  father  who  washed  his 
hands,  and  then  taking  one  of  the  servers  gave  a 
piece  of  the  unleavened  bread  enclosing  the  bitter 
herbs  to  each  of  the  Samaritans.  Then  all  faced 
the  east,  the  high  priest  recited  alone  for  the  time 
when  the  people  bowed  with  their  faces  to  the 
ground.  Then  they  arose,  followed  by  moments  of 
silence,  when  they  began  to  chant  again,  and  then 
prostrated  themselves  several  times  as  before,  sit- 
ting at  interv^als  but  none  ate  the  morsel  of  bitter 
herbs  that  had  been  handed  to  them.  Whilst  they 
were  generally  dressed  in  white,  some  wore  dark 
overcoats,  and  only  one  man  had  a  towel  girt  about 
his  loins,  and  none  of  the  rest  had  their  loins  girt 
about,  and  all  wore  shoes.  Then  the  exercises 
again  varied;  from  sitting,  they  prostrated  thern- 
selves,  returned  to  the  sitting  posture,  and  toward 
the  close  especially  there  were  violent  symptoms 
of  strange  uncontrolled  emotions,  and  unnatural 
hysterical  jerking  in  their  chanting,  with  loud  ex- 
pulsive voice,  enough  to  exhaust  their  physical  en- 
ergies; and  all  was  suggestive  of  great  haste,  ex- 
cept the  prolonged  length  of  the  exercises,  for  they 
did  not  seem  to  be  in  any  hurry  to  end  them,  al- 
though we  felt  that  they  might  have  shortened 
them  without  sacrificing  the  general  effect.    How- 


io6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ever,  my  interest  was  sustained  to  the  last,  and  T 
followed  the  ceremony  with  unflagging  attention, 
for  there  was  great  variety  and  hence  it  was  not 
monotonous  whilst  the  rapid  movements  of  the 
ritual  kept  the  beholders  alert  for  any  new  feature 
that  might  appear,  and  the  intense  realism  that  it 
gave  to  this  historic  institution  was  a  constant 
source  of  profound  interest. 

It  gave  us  most  vivid  impressions  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  Passover  that  ceasedwith  the  destruction  of 
their  temple  in  the  year  seventy  and  henceforth 
became  obsolete  for  them,  so  far  as  the  sacrificial 
rites  were  concerned,  even  though  the  fact  of  the 
institution  itself  was  commemorated  by  a  special 
brief  ritual  to  keep  it  in  everlasting  remembrance, 
for  the  outward  and  elaborate  ceremonial  that  was 
once  inseparable  from  this  memorable  feast  has 
been  wanting  among  them  since  their  worship  in 
the  temple  of  Jerusalem  ceased,  and  hence  as  year- 
ly observed  by  the  Samaritans  it  is  the  solitary 
example  of  the  Mosaic  institution  that  has  come 
down  to  our  times.  I  was  also  impressed  by  way 
of  contrast  with  the  infinite  superiority  of  the  new 
dispensation  over  the  old,  for  it  was  a  bloody  sac- 
rifice, and  was  lacking  in  serious  reverence  and 
spirituality. 

Only  a  few  had  a  staff  to  symbolize  the  ancient 
institution,  but  all  sat  and  none  stood  whilst  eating 


The  Passover  107 

the  Passover,  although  the  same  haste  that  charac- 
terized all  their  ceremonies  was  not  absent  from 
their  eating,  and  no  doubt  their  long  abstinence 
had  given  them  a  keen  relish  for  the  feast,  so  that 
their  haste  in  swallowing  the  food  was  wholly  un- 
assumed,  and  they  entered  upon  this  last  feature 
of  their  ceremony  with  that  same  strange  but  to 
them  apparently  natural  hurry  that  had  marked 
all  the  various  parts  of  the  Passover  celebration. 

Never  before  from  all  my  reading  did  I  re- 
ceive such  vivid  impressions  of  that  memorable 
rite  which  was  instituted  on  the  night  of  Israel's 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage,  as  when  I 
witnessed  the  celebration  on  Mt.  Gerizim. 

Whilst  the  Holy  Temple  at  Jerusalem  has 
passed  away,  and  whilst  the  local  surroundings  on 
Gerizim  were  different,  yet  we  were  in  the  midst 
of  the  historical  associations,  connected  with  a  Sa- 
maritan temple  that  once  stood  near  by  us  as  a 
rival  to  that  at  Jerusalem,  and  this  had  been 
held  in  sacred  memory  through  many  centuries  of 
religious  devotion,  for  whilst  the  Jews  had  allowed 
the  original  Passover  with  all  its  former  elaborate 
ceremonialism  to  cease  with  the  destruction  of  their 
Temple,  the  Samaritans  had  preserved  that  an- 
cient institution,  and  annually  celebrated  the  feast 
of  the  Passover  with  all  the  essential  and  main 
features  as  their  fathers  had  observed  it.     Hence 


io8  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

with  the  Important  characteristics  of  this  Mosaic 
institution  of  the  ancient  Jews  enacted  before  our 
eyes,  even  in  minor  details,  it  was  not  difficult  for 
us  in  imagination  to  reproduce  the  similar  scene 
once  witnessed  In  Jerusalem.  For  here  was  the 
actual  observance  of  that  same  historic  Passover. 
The  high  priest  and  people  repeated  the  very- 
words  of  that  same  original  Institution  as  their 
fathers  did  several  thousand  years  before,  and  the 
different  parts  of  that  feast  were  enacted  with  all 
their  objective  realism  by  the  slaying  of  the  lambs, 
the  roasting  and  eating  of  the  lambs  with  bitter 
herbs  and  unleavened  bread,  not  permitting  any 
Important  feature  of  the  ritual  to  be  omitted  as  the 
Jews  do  in  their  quasi-memorial  or  spiritual  obser- 
vance of  it. 

That  remnant  of  this  most  wonderful  race  still 
preserves  the  formal  and  outward  ceremonies  in 
all  their  essential  detail,  and  according  to  the  strict 
letter  of  the  law  as  once  did  the  entire  Jewish  peo- 
ple several  thousand  years  ago.  Nay  more — they 
seem  to  be  fully  persuaded  from  deep  religious 
conviction  that  in  this  manner  they  ought  to  ob- 
serve the  annual  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  hence 
they  engage  in  the  particular  ceremony  with  all  the 
ardor  of  their  ancient  belief,  with  impassioned  en- 
thusiasm, and  at  times  their  religious  unction  rises 
almost  to  the  pitch  of  frenzy.    On  that  memorable 


The  Passover  109 

day  my  long  deferred  hope  was  realized,  for  there 
I  had  seen  this  remarkable  historic  rite  that  Israel 
of  old  celebrated  with  impressive  ceremonialism 
because  it  was  dear  to  the  heart  of  Israel,  and  this 
my  eyes  had  now  beheld  celebrated  in  all  its  im- 
portant features  by  this  ancient  Jewish  sect  on  Mt. 
Gerizim. 

Whilst  from  a  remote  period  a  most  bitter  feud 
has  existed  between  the  Samaritans  and  the  He- 
brew race  as  a  whole,  which  became  intensified 
when  they  were  forbidden  to  assist  the  exiles  in  re- 
building the  temple,  and  whilst  they  had  been  stig- 
matized as  Cushites  and  denounced  for  their  het- 
erodoxy, they  are  undoubtedly  a  Jewish  sect,  al- 
though their  distant  ancestors  did  inter-marry  with 
the  Assyrian  colonists.  But  the  great  majority  of 
the  Jews  of  Palestine  to-day,  and  those  who  claim 
to  be  orthodox  are  the  descendants  of  foreign  an- 
cestors and  the  admixture  of  ethnic  blood  in  their 
veins  from  other  nations  than  that  of  the  Jews, 
may  be  even  greater  than  in  the  case  of  the  Sa- 
maritans. At  all  events  their  rival  co-religionists 
can  lay  claim  to  a  longer  period  for  their  Passover 
observance  in  its  fullest  outward  ceremony  than 
the  most  orthodox  Jews  can,  for  whilst  their  tem- 
ple on  Gerizim  was  destroyed  by  John  Hyrcanor 
132  B.C.,  and  through  long  periods  of  war  and 
persecution  their  outward  observances  of  the  Pass- 


no  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

over  were  interrupted,  nevertheless  through  all 
this  time  Gerizim  continued  to  be  their  sacred 
shrine,  and  their  faith  adhered  to  the  Holy  Mount 
and  under  favorable  circumstances  they  repaired 
their  simple  tabernacle  and  kept  the  Passover. 

The  references  to  the  Samaritans  in  the  New 
Testament  present  them  in  a  rather  favorable 
light,  and  in  Christ's  healing  of  the  ten  lepers  he 
has  immortalized  the  gratitude  of  the  one  who  felt 
impelled  by  gratitude  to  return  and  give  thanks  to 
his  gracious  benefactor,  and  this  grateful  one  was 
a  Samaritan,  although  it  does  not  necessarily  fol- 
low that  all  the  other  nine  were  Jews,  and  that 
there  was  not  even  a  Samaritan  among  them. 

On  another  occasion,  Christ  brings  out  in  strik- 
ing contrast  the  respective  moral  traits  of  the  Jew 
and  the  Samaritan,  to  the  decided  advantage  of 
the  latter,  I  refer  to  the  parable  of  the  Good 
Samaritan,  and  this  marked  contrast  is  even 
greater  when  we  remember  with  what  aversion  the 
Jew  looked  upon  the  Samaritan  and  even  treated 
him  with  social  ostracism  as  a  despised  people. 


Ill 


THE    REAL   PRESENCE   OF    CHRIST   IN  THE    LORD  S 
SUPPER 

IT  is  not  difficult  after  witnessing  the  Samaritan 
Passover  to  reproduce  before  the  mind's  eye 
the  thrilling  scenes  connected  with  the  annual 
feast  of  the  Jewish  Passover  when  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  pilgrims  from  various  countries  came 
up  to  Jerusalem,  encamping  within  and  without  the 
city  on  the  slopes  of  the  surrounding  hills.  We 
are  greatly  aided  in  giving  vivid  realism  to  that 
distant  event  when  we  observe  the  Easter  cere- 
monies in  Jerusalem,  for  thousands  of  pilgrims 
come  annually  from  the  different  countries  of  Eu- 
rope to  see  and  worship  in  that  most  holy  shrine 
of  Christendom,  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre. At  one  of  these  festivals  10,000  pilgrims 
had  come  from  Russia;  crowding  into  all  the  many 
holy  places  made  sacred  by  tradition.  On  our  way 
to  and  from  the  Jordan  we  passed  groups  of  tens 
and  even  hundreds  hurrying  to  the  Russian  bath- 
ing place  in  the  Jordan,  hallowed  by  their  tradi- 
tion as  the  place  of  our  Saviour's  baptism.     As 

III 


112  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

we  look  upon  these  zealous  pilgrims,  in  imagina- 
tion we  can  easily  transpose  them  into  the  Jewish 
pilgrims  who  came  up  the  same  way  from  Jericho 
to  celebrate  the  Passover  in  the  days  of  Christ. 
Hence  let  us  in  the  mind's  eye  go  back  through  the 
centuries  to  Jericho,  that  we  may  meet  Jesus  as  He 
comes  with  His  disciples  from  Galilee  on  His  way 
to  attend  the  Passover.  We  may  see  Jesus  as  He 
proceeds  through  Jericho,  followed  by  a  crowd  of 
people  who  were  attracted  by  various  motives. 
We  may  hear  the  loud  cry  of  blind  Bartimaeus 
that  Jesus  would  restore  his  sight,  and  we  may  see 
Zacchaeus  who  sought  to  behold  Jesus  as  He 
passed  by,  but  whose  view  was  obstructed  by  others 
as  he  was  short  of  stature,  and  running  ahead  he 
climbed  into  a  sycamore  tree  by  the  wayside,  hop- 
ing that  the  face  of  Jesus  might  be  turned  toward 
him  as  He  passed  by.  His  anxiety  was  of  short 
duration,  and  with  joy  he  realized  more  than  he 
had  hoped  for;  he  not  only  saw  Jesus,  but  Jesus 
saw  him,  and  looking  up  into  his  face,  called  him 
down  for  He  would  be  his  guest  that  day.  One  of 
the  most  realistic  pictures  of  that  journey,  and  one 
that  could  only  have  been  drawn  by  an  observant 
eye-witness,  is  that  which  portrays  a  vision  of  the 
effect  of  the  final  crisis;  when,  "He  steadfastly  set 
His  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem."  So  remarkable 
was  that  incident  on  the  journey  to  which  I  refer 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     113 

that  the  Gospel  informs  us  that:  "they  were  on  the 
way,  going  up  to  Jerusalem;  and  Jesus  was  going 
before  them:  and  they  were  amazed  and  they 
that  followed  were  afraid."  There  was  something 
unusual  and  overawing  in  His  manner  and  visage 
as  He  was  approaching  the  city  where  the  greatest 
tragedy  of  history  was  soon  to  be  enacted.  "For 
He  took  unto  Him  the  twelve,  and  said  unto  them, 
Behold  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  things 
that  are  written  through  the  prophets  shall  be  ac- 
complished unto  the  Son  of  man.  For  He  shall 
be  delivered  unto  the  Gentiles,  and  shall  be 
mocked,  and  shamefully  treated,  and  spit  upon: 
and  they  shall  scourge  and  kill  Him :  and  the  third 
day  He  shall  rise  again." 

With  the  historic  background  of  the  times  of 
Christ,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  three  Gospels  and  I 
Cor.  let  us  in  imagination  go  back  through  the 
centuries,  and  get  as  clearly  as  possible  the  view 
point  of  the  disciples,  and  hear  what  they  heard, 
and  see  as  they  saw  what  actually  transpired,  and 
as  far  as  possible,  get  the  impression  that  was  most 
likely  made  upon  them  on  that  momentous  occa- 
sion. By  visualizing  the  scene,  and  vitalizing  the 
chief  actors  we  may  in  a  measure  become  specta- 
tors as  we  draw  near  in  reverent  contemplation, 
for  the  place  we  tread  is  on  holy  ground.  It  is  not 
only  possible  but  highly  probable  that  we  may  lo- 


114  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

cate  the  very  site  where  Jesus  came  with  His  dis- 
ciples to  eat  the  Passover,  and  that  when  we  enter 
the  upper  room  of  that  venerated  building  known 
as  the  Coenaculum,  on  Mt.  Zion,  we  have  actually- 
come  to  the  very  place  where  Jesus  ate  the  Last 
Supper  with  His  disciples,  and  instituted  this  holy 
and  central  rite  of  the  Church.  For  many  cen- 
turies tradition  has  identified  the  site  where  this 
old  building  stands  as  the  actual  place.  On  various 
occasions  when  visiting  the  places  of  chief  histori- 
cal interest  in  Jerusalem  and  studying  them  in 
connection  with  events  in  the  life  of  Christ,  I  have 
spent  much  time  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre and  about  the  Temple  area,  but  in  no  place 
did  I  seem  to  come  to  a  conclusion  of  certainty  sur- 
passing or  rather  equal  to  that  which  I  felt  when 
pondering,  on  the  spot,  the  claims  that  entitle  the 
Coenaculum  to  be  the  veritable  place,  and  worthy 
of  acceptance;  and  as  often  as  I  came,  the  convic- 
tion grew  more  strongly  upon  me  that  here  indeed 
we  were  standing  upon  holy  ground.  This  is  not 
the  place  to  enter  into  an  investigation  of  the  his- 
torical reasons  adduced  in  favor  of  the  claim,  but 
it  must  suffice  to  state  that  they  are  of  sufficient 
importance  to  have  commended  themselves  to 
some  noted  scholars  who  are  inclined  to  accept 
the  claim.  Such  an  amount  of  historical  evidence 
has  been  produced  by  scholarly  investigation  that 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      115 

there  Is  a  very  strong  probability  In  favor  of  the 
traditional  Coenaculum.  No  one  can  question  the 
continuity  of  the  tradition  since  the  days  of  Con- 
stantlne;  and  there  seems  to  be  a  quite  reliable  con- 
necting link  extending  back,  to  the  reign  of  the  Em- 
peror Hadrian.  Epiphanius  writes  without  any 
hesitation,  as  If  referring  to  a  well-authenticated 
fact  of  history  that  Hadrian  "found  the  whole  city 
razed  to  the  ground  and  the  Temple  of  God  trod- 
den under  foot,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  build- 
ings and  of  the  little  Church  of  God,  on  the  site 
where  the  disciples  returning  after  the  ascension 
of  the  Saviour  from  Olivet  had  gone  up  to  the 
upper  room,  for  there  It  (I.e.  the  little  church) 
had  been  built."  Whilst  we  cannot  tell  to-day 
from  what  source  Epiphanius  obtained  his  Infor- 
mation, Dr.  Sanday  says :  "I  do  not  think  that  its 
historical  character  need  be  questioned."  The  his- 
torical character  of  the  circumstantial  statement  of 
Epiphanius  seems  sufficiently  valid,  and  if  he  ob- 
tained his  Information  from  reliable  sources,  and 
quotes  from  accurate  knowledge  as  appears  from 
his  straightforward  manner  and  unqualified  state- 
ment, then  he  takes  us  back  to  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  or  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of 
Hadrian  117.  As  Dr.  Sanday  states:  "This  Is 
the  last  of  the  stepping  stones  from  Constantine 
backwards,  and  a  sufficiently  broad  and  firm  one." 


ii6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

He  holds  that  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
upper  room  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  is 
the  one  that  Epiphanius  refers  to;  "Nor  is  it,  I 
suppose,  a  very  precarious  step  to  identify  this 
upper  room  as  in  the  house  of  Mary,  the  mother  of 
Mark,  and  quite  legitimate  if  we  suppose  that  the 
house  of  Mary  and  her  son  was  the  one  central 
meeting  place  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  through- 
out the  Apostolic  age."  If  there  was  but  a  single 
church,  and  a  little  one  in  the  time  of  Hadrian,  we 
naturally  conclude  that  it  was,  as  the  language  of 
Epiphanius  implies,  the  direct  descendant  of  the 
single  house  that  appears  to  have  done  duty  for  a 
church  (or  at  least  for  the  principal  permanent 
church)  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Indeed  the 
memory  of  this  fact  appears  never  to  have  been 
lost.  "Referring  to  the  early  tradition  of  writers 
Sanday  concludes:  "It  is  really  remarkable  to  see 
what  I  believe  to  be  a  perfectly  valid  tradition  pre- 
served thus  clearly  and  consciously  throughout  the 
centuries.  It  is  the  strength  of  a  cord  made  up  of 
many  strands.  The  meeting-place  of  a  whole 
church  would  not  likely  to  be  forgotten.  The  tra- 
dition would  always  remain.  As  the  Upper  Room 
was  not  only  all  the  time  visible,  but  also  continu- 
ously in  use,  or  so  nearly  continuously  as  not  to 
make  a  real  break  in  the  chain.  Indeed  the  evi- 
dence for  the  site  of  the  Coenaculum  or  Upper 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     117 

Room  appears  to  me  so  strong  that,  for  my  own 
part,  I  think  that  I  should  be  prepared  to  give  it  an 
unquahfied  adhesion."     Sacred  Sites. 

In  the  early  Christian  Church,  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  regarded  as  of  supreme  im- 
portance when  they  assembled  together  for  wor- 
ship. They  realized  their  need  of  the  real  pres- 
ence of  Christ,  and  in  the  Lord's  Supper  they  had 
the  assurance  of  His  presence  given  in  His  own 
words  that  He  spoke  when  He  instituted  the  Sup- 
per. When  they  heard  the  same  words  repeated 
that  once  fell  from  His  lips,  they  carried  with  them 
all  the  significance  that  they  bore  when  originally 
uttered  by  their  Lord  and  Master;  and  hence  the 
supreme  emphasis  given  to  this  ordinance  by  the 
Church  universal. 

Nowhere  else  was  the  doctrine  of  the  brother- 
hood of  man  exemplified  as  here  in  the  fellowship 
of  all  classes  of  Christians,  from  the  higher  classes 
as  well  as  from  the  lowest  ranks  of  society.  The 
masters  and  slaves  met  together  in  common  places 
of  worship — in  private  homes  of  those  who  could 
provide  suitable  rooms,  in  the  days  when  the 
Church  was  in  the  home.  The  doors  were  closed 
against  no  believer,  and  however  humble,  all  were 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table.  Christ  had  died 
for  all  irrespective  of  their  social  standing;  for  all 
were  one  in  Christ  Jesus  and  were  partakers  to- 


Ii8  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

gether  at  the  Lord's  Supper  that  was  instituted  for 
all  who  received  Christ  for  their  Lord  and  Master. 

The  early  and  general  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  undeniable  proof  of  great  evidential 
value  as  to  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection,  and 
the  irresistible  impression  that  it  made  upon  His 
contemporaries  and  their  immediate  followers. 
Never  would  this  Supper  have  been  repeated  after 
Christ's  ignominious  death,  and  become  the  most 
sacred  ordinance  in  the  worship  of  the  primitive 
Church,  had  He  not  risen  from  the  dead  and  ap- 
peared alive  again  unto  His  disciples.  It  was  the 
power  of  the  personal  and  ever-living  Christ  in 
His  resurrection  from  the  dead  that  made  the 
Lord's  Supper  a  necessity  in  that  Sacrament  where 
they  held  a  real  communion  with  Him,  and  for 
which  there  could  be  no  substitute. 

In  the  Christian  Church  the  altar  or  table  of  the 
Lord  was  of  the  highest  significance,  for  it  was  in- 
separable from  the  Lord  Himself;  and  hence  it 
was  the  most  conspicuous  object  in  the  Church,  oc- 
cupying the  central  or  chief  place  in  the  sanctuary. 

The  reason  for  this  distinction  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  on  that  altar  or  table  of  the  Lord  were 
consecrated  the  sacred  elements,  the  bread  and 
wine — of  which  Jesus  had  said: — "Take  eat;  this 
is  my  body,"  etc.  They  recognized  the  presence  of 
the  Person  of  Christ  in  that  Holy  Sacrament,  and 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      119 

hence  its  prominence  and  the  supreme  importance 
attached  to  it.  Amid  the  bitter  persecutions  of  the 
first  Christian  centuries  when  the  devotion  of  the 
worshipper  meant  death,  they  sought  out  at  times 
the  subterranean  chapel  in  the  Catacombs  among 
the  recesses  for  their  dead  in  Christ,  and  there  on 
the  sacred  altar  were  consecrated  the  elements  for 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  for  that  holy 
fellowship  was  too  precious  to  them  to  be  omitted. 
It  was  indeed  a  nourishment  for  their  souls  as  they 
recognized  the  real  Presence  of  the  body  of  Christ 
in  that  Sacrament. 

The  same  was  true  when  the  bloody  persecutions 
were  waged  against  the  Huguenots  of  France, 
when  at  times  the  worshippers  were  hunted  down 
like  wild  beasts,  and  were  unable  to  assemble  in 
their  public  sanctuaries,  for  that  would  have  ex- 
posed them  to  death.  But  they  longed  to  com- 
mune with  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  hence  at  the  great  risk  of  life  theymet 
in  the  dead  of  night  at  a  designated  secret  place 
known  as  the  "Black  Swamp,"  and  there  they  met 
their  Saviour  in  the  Holy  Communion.  The  ter- 
rible wars  of  religion  could  not  quench  the  deep 
longings  of  soul  that  Christ  alone  could  satisfy. 

The  same  was  true  in  the  north  of  Europe, 
when  the  Covenanters  of  Scotland  were  denied  the 
precious  and  God-given,  inalienable  rights  of  re- 


I20  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ligious  liberty,  to  worship  according  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  conscience.  They  could  commune 
with  Christ  in  prayer  in  secret  in  their  own  homes, 
at  their  work  and  along  the  street  or  highway,  but 
they  realized  the  deep  wants  of  the  soul  that  had 
often  been  satisfied  at  the  Holy  Communion,  and 
hence  they  assembled  at  night  on  the  heath,  in  an 
unfrequented  place,  and  there  together  in  God's 
unbounded  sanctuary  and  the  starry  canopy  of 
heaven  above  them,  and  the  consciousness  of 
Christ's  presence,  they  met  at  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  together  received  the  Person  of  Christ — His 
Body  and  His  Blood.  They  realized  His  real 
presence  and  that  they  had  received  His  substan- 
tial grace  that  was  sufficient  for  them;  and  they 
returned  home  strengthened  and  encouraged, 
abiding  in  Christ  and  He  in  them.  The  Holy 
Eucharist  meant  something  to  them  and  they  could 
not  dispense  with  it. 

Our  New  England  forefathers  suffered  great 
hardships  during  the  severe  winters  for  they 
lacked  the  modern  comforts,  and  their  churches 
had  no  methods  of  warming  them;  and  yet  the 
people  assembled  together  and  in  their  plain  and 
uncomfortable  sanctuaries  to  celebrate  the  Sac- 
rament of  the  Lord's  Supper.  So  bitter  cold  was 
It  at  times,  as  Judge  Sewall  left  us  the  record,  that 
the  broken  bread  for  the  communicants  was  frozen 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     121 

and  rattled  in  the  paten  like  morsels  of  ice.  It 
meant  something  to  them,  and  the  sacrifice  that 
they  made  was  the  proof  of  their  conscientious  de- 
votion to  the  Sacrament  from  which  they  had  re- 
ceived potential  efiicacy  for  Christian  living. 

There  are  some  precious  truths  to  the  Christian 
that  we  cannot  explain,  though  the  Church  uni- 
versal unites  in  believing  them.  Such  are  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Incarnation,  the  Trinity,  and  the 
Eucharist;  and  it  is  useless  to  press  for  an  answer 
the  question:  "How  can  these  things  be?"  for 
no  man  can  explain  them.  The  Scriptural  nar- 
ratives of  the  Lord's  Supper  constitute  the  sure 
and  only  foundation  for  our  faith  in  this  Holy 
Sacrament,  and  there  is  substantial  agreement 
among  the  Latin,  Greek  and  certain  Protestant 
Churches  in  the  simple  statement  of  that  doctrine, 
as  may  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  their  Creeds,  for 
the  differences  become  manifest  in  their  explana- 
tions. 

As  an  example.  Art.  X  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, which  is  based  upon  a  plain  and  positive 
statement  of  the  Scriptural  narrative,  declares: 
"In  regard  to  the  Lord's  Suppper,  they  teach  that 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present, 
and  are  dispensed  to  the  communicants  in  the 
Lord's  Supper;  and  they  disapprove  those  who 
teach  otherwise."     Art.  28  of  the  39  Articles  of 


122  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  Church  of  England  declares:  "that  to  such  as 
rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith,  receive  the  same 
the  Bread  which  we  break  is  a  partaking  of  the 
Body  of  Christ;  and  likewise  the  Cup  of  Blessing 
is  a  partaking  of  the  Blood  of  Christ."  The  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  21  year  after  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion was  adopted,  pronounced  "anathema"  against 
any  one  who  denied  "that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
most  holy  Eucharist  are  contained  truly,  really  and 
substantially,  the  body  and  blood  together  with  the 
soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
consequently  the  Whole  Christ."  These  state- 
ments are  not  necessarily  antagonistic  in  fact,  and 
the  conflicting  opinions  only  appear  when  the 
Council  of  Trent  ventured  to  explain  their  posi- 
tive statement  by  declaring  the  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation  in  these  words:  "this  holy  Synod 
doth  now  declare  it  anew,  that,  by  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine,  a  conversion 
is  made  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  into 
the  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord, 
and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the 
substance  of  his  blood;  which  conversion  is,  by 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  suitably  and  properly 
called  Transubstantiation."  It  is  the  explana- 
tion that  makes  the  radical  difference  irreconcil- 
able with  Protestant  views.  But  Zwingle  went  to 
the  other  extreme  by  denying  any  real  Presence 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     123 

of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Sacrament,  but  emptied  it 
of  all  substantial  content  of  Christ,  and  declared 
that  it  was  only  a  commemoration  of  the  sac- 
rifice of  Him  on  the  Cross. 

It  is  evident  that  our  differences  as  well  as  our 
difficulties  become  manifest  when  we  endeavor 
to  penetrate  the  profound  mystery  of  the  real 
Presence  of  Christ  as  stated  in  the  Divine  nar- 
rative, and  attempt  a  solution.  The  Lutheran 
Church  does  not  feel  bound  to  explain  that  Pres- 
ence, but  holds  to  the  plain  Scriptural  account, 
taking  the  words  of  Christ  Himself.  She  believes 
that  the  Presence  is  that  of  the  spiritual  body  of 
Christ,  the  same  body  that  suffered  on  the  cross, 
but  now  present  in  its  glorified  states;  and  "in 
full  and  complete  exercise  of  those  infinite  prop- 
erties that  belong  to  human  nature  in  both  body 
and  soul  from  its  union  with  a  divine  nature." 
Dr.  Jacobs. 

As  Dr.  Valentine  states;  "Though  we  can- 
not explain  this  Eucharist  presence  of  the  un- 
divided Person  of  the  Divine  and  human  nature  In 
Christ,  it  is  conceivable  and  not  impossible  for  the 
Omnipresent  Saviour  to  will  and  grant  to  the 
faithful  communicant  a  special  sacramental  pres- 
ence. He  fills  these  elements  with  His  perva- 
sive presence,  with  His  glorified  human  nature 
as  well  as  with  the  divine,  making  them  the  ve- 


124  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

hides  of  His  self-importation  in  the  fulness  of 
His  atoning  self  sacrifice  .  .  .  The  terms  body 
and  blood  stand  for  the  humanity  in  which  Christ 
gave  Himself  to  death  for  sin;  and  since  His  ex- 
altation He  is  present  in  the  mode  of  existence 
which  His  Deity  gives  or  can  give  to  His  whole 
Person  ...  It  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
as  He  possesses  them  since  His  glorification,  and 
not  of  them  in  naturalistic  sense  or  condition,  that 
the  Lutheran  Church  makes  aflirmation  .  .  .  The 
mode  is  marked  as  'sacramental,'  'supernatural,' 
'incomprehensible,'  and  'spiritual.'  Hence,  impa- 
nation,  consubstantiation,  and  subpanation  are  all 
repudiated  as  descriptive  of  the  manner.  The 
Presence  in  the  Supper  is  of  the  glorified  and  ex- 
alted Christ  Himself,  in  the  indivisible  unity  of 
His  Divine-human  Person,  and  the  glorified 
Christ  can  be  received  only  by  spiritual  compre- 
hension and  appropriation.  Oral  manducation  is 
inapplicable  to  acceptance  of  His  Divine  nature, 
and  His  human  nature  does  not  exist  apart,  to 
be  separately  given  or  received."      (II,  357.) 

Whilst  this  is  the  accepted  belief  and  teaching  of 
theLutheran  Church,  as  defined  by  her  theologians, 
unfortunately  she  has  been  misunderstood,  and 
even  persistently  misrepresented  by  certain  writ- 
ters  who  distort  and  exaggerate  the  language  as 
teaching  an  offensive  naturalistic  and  materiahstic 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper     125 

mode  of  the  real  Presence,  and  such  as  the  Church 
has  never  held,  and  against  which  we  have  al- 
ways protested;  but  in  spite  of  which  they  re- 
proach us  with  the  fallacious  stigma  of  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation.  There  is  no 
excuse  for  such  misunderstanding  and  perversion 
of  the  well  known  teaching  of  the  Church,  for  re- 
liable information  on  the  subject  can  easily  be  ob- 
tained from  acknowledged  Lutheran  sources  by 
any  desiring  to  know  the  truth.  Inasmuch  as 
Christ  desired  the  oneness  of  all  His  believers  to 
meet  in  this  Holy  Sacrament  in  the  spirit  of  truth 
and  love  in  this  centre  of  worship  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  therefore,  we  should  try  to  get 
nearer  together  by  putting  the  most  charitable 
construction  upon  the  opinions  of  others,  and  not 
insist  upon  separating  others  as  far  as  possible 
from  ourselves  by  gross  misrepresentation,  and 
attributing  to  them  views  that  they  as  a  Church 
never  held,  but  always  repudiated.  Surely  others 
have  a  right  to  explain  their  own  interpretation 
of  the  real  Presence  in  the  Eucharist  and  we  have 
no  right  to  misunderstand  them,  nor  to  misrep- 
resent them  as  teaching  otherwise.  Love  for  the 
brethren  in  Christ  should  make  us  most  charitable 
in  dealing  with  the  truth  of  our  brethren. 

Inasmuch    as    the    various    denominations    ac- 
knowledge the  authoritative  character  of  the  same 


126  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

scriptural  accounts,  It  is  evident  that  it  has  be- 
come a  question  of  interpretation.  It  is  no  less 
evident  that  the  particular  views  arising  from  in- 
terpreting the  divine  record  will  depend  largely 
upon  our  mental  bias  and  the  manner  of  approach. 
If  we  are  thoroughly  prepossessed  with  our  par- 
ticular views,  however  we  may  have  come  by  them, 
then  the  result  is  a  foregone  conclusion.  The 
point  of  view  that  men  take  of  questions  depends 
very  much  upon  which  side  they  are  on,  for  this 
is  a  psychological  fact  seen  in  the  history  of  pol- 
itics as  well  as  in  religion.  The  rank  and  file  fol- 
low the  leaders  and  take  it  for  granted  that  they 
are  on  the  right  side,  for  prejudice  and  the  per- 
sonal equation  become  the  substitute  for  critical 
investigation.  The  members  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  do  not  think  for  a  moment  that  they 
have  been  in  error  in  any  of  their  fundamental 
doctrines  and  practices,  and  that  the  Protestants 
are  nearer  the  truth  in  faith  and  practice.  The 
converse  Is  also  true,  and  hence  the  persistency  of 
the  ways  that  endure. 

Much  depends  upon  the  antecedents  of  the 
people,  and  the  vast  majority,  if  not  all,  are  the 
product  of  their  antecedents.  Hence  when  some 
controversialists  have  entered  the  arena,  they 
found  it  so  difficult  to  get  the  other  man's  point 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      127 

of  view  and  to  deal  fairly  with  him,  for  they  were 
controlled  by  prejudice. 

There  have  been  much  bitterness  and  misrep- 
resentation among  controversialists  at  times,  who 
losing  their  judicial  temperament  also  lost  sight 
of  the  critical  standards  that  should  always  guide 
us  in  the  search  for  truth.  Some  men  who  have 
differed  from  us  on  even  important  questions, 
may  be  vastly  the  superior  of  some  who  have 
agreed  with  us  and  we  must  still  love  them  in 
soul  and  show  it  in  conduct.  This  is  Christ's  re- 
quirement: "This  I  command  you  that  ye  love 
one  another,  even  as  I  have  loved  you." 

Whilst  all  cannot  think  alike,  all  may  love 
alike,  and  hence  Christ's  command.  In  years  of 
world-wide  travel  I  saw  mothers  of  every  intel- 
lectual, social  and  religious  condition  imaginable 
— their  differences  were  great  and  irreconcilable, 
but  they  all  resemble  one  another  in  this  one  su- 
preme fact  they  all  loved  alike.  Each  one  cared 
for  and  loved  her  child  devoutly.  God  is  love, 
and  each  mother  bore  the  image  of  God  mani- 
fested in  the  Flesh,  for  we  all  are  the  offspring 
of  God.  When  we  give  ourselves  up  to  hate  and 
cease  to  love,  then  we  cease  to  be  Christian. 

Hence  there  should  be  no  intolerant  speech  nor 
hate  in  theological  discussion,  however  much  men 


128  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

may  differ  in  their  opinions.  I  pray  and  long  for 
the  early  coming  of  the  day  when  the  Roman 
Catholic  and  Protestant  clergy  can  talk  as  men 
and  brethren  in  Christ,  about  the  undeniable  facts 
of  history  that  brought  about  the  Reformation; 
and  freely  acknowledging  the  lamentable  mistakes 
that  once  prevailed  in  the  Church,  desire  to  find 
a  common  ground  of  belief  where  we  can  labor 
together  for  God  and  humanity.  I  can  and  have 
talked  as  a  brother  man  to  a  Jewish  Rabbi  respect- 
ing that  memorable  Passover  in  Jerusalem  when 
Jesus  suffered  crucifixion.  We  talked  like  men 
concerning  the  chief  actors  and  the  responsibil- 
ity of  the  High  Priest  in  that  miscarriage  of  jus- 
tice when  the  Innocent  One  was  nailed  to  the 
cross.  Surely  we  must  be  able  to  meet  Christian 
men  also,  and  in  the  spirit  of  love  discuss  historic 
events  that  emphasized  abuses  as  well  as  the 
Christ  and  His  truth. 

The  old  veterans  of  the  Civil  War  who  fought 
at  Gettysburg,  come  together  on  that  famous  bat- 
tlefield, with  all  the  once  bitter  differences  buried, 
and  they  meet  in  love  and  hearty  good  fellow- 
ship— vying  in  loyal  devotion  to  country.  Why 
cannot  priests  and  ministers  do  as  well?  All  re- 
gret the  mistakes  of  the  past.  No  Jew  would 
name  his  boy  Judas  Iscariot  and  no  Roman  Cath- 
olic would  baptize  his  boy  John  Tetzel,  just  as 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper      129 

no  American  would  name  his  son  Benedict  Ar- 
nold. 

When  I  reflect  upon  some  of  the  shocking  ex- 
amples of  intolerance  and  selfishness  on  the  part 
of  men  claiming  to  be  followers  of  Christ,  I  am 
reminded  of  Constantine  the  Great  who  after 
vainly  endeavouring  to  enable  the  old  Novation 
to  see  his  un-Christian  intolerance  as  the  Emperor 
saw  it,  said  complacently  to  the  self-possessed 
pretender:  "Take  a  ladder,  Acesius,  and  climb 
to  heaven  by  yourself."  There  have  been  some 
self-deluded  fanatics  like  the  ascetics,  and  a  few 
selfish  ones  that  remain,  who  would  even  want 
to  take  the  ladder  with  them  when  they  make  the 
ascent  to  heaven  and  leave  others  to  perish.  It 
is  a  sad  reflection  that  no  one  has  been  so  mis- 
understood and  misrepresented  by  his  own  chil- 
dren as  God  our  heavenly  Father;  and  at  times  the 
greatest  wrongs  were  committed  by  those  who  in- 
sisted that  they  were  His  only  true  children,  and 
persecuted  all  who  dared  to  differ. 

On  all  questions  concerning  which  neither  rea- 
son nor  revelation  enables  us  to  express  an  in- 
fallible opinion,  and  where  absolute  certainty  from 
any  source  is  unattainable,  the  spirit  of  modera- 
tion should  characterize  our  utterances,  with  a 
sympathetic  mental  attitude  toward  those  who 
differ  from  us,  ever  desiring  to  know  the  truth. 


130  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

All  must  deplore  the  bitter  controversies  respect- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  in- 
stead of  being  maintained  in  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tian love,  and  allowing  others  to  follow  their 
conscientious  convictions,  some  of  those  in  the 
minority  were  put  to  death  for  denying  the  doc- 
trine of  Transubstantiation,  though  they  professed 
their  unqualified  faith  In  the  very  words  that 
Christ  used  at  the  Institution,  and  believed  in 
His  real  and  true  presence  in  the  Eucharist,  but 
not  in  the  mode  as  expressed  by  transubstantia- 
tion. We  must  have  love  and  patience  with  those 
who  honestly  differ  from  us  on  questions  that  can- 
not be  solved  with  absolute  certainty;  and  not  as- 
sume an  autocratic  manner  of  dogmatic  author- 
ity to  speak,  ex  cathedra,  the  final  word  from 
which  no  appeal  can  be  taken,  and  declaring 
anathema  against  all  who  dare  to  think  differently. 
They  should  seriously  meditate  upon  the  words 
of  Plummer  on  reverent  Agnosticism:  "Reli- 
gious truth  is  a  very  large  thing,  and  none  of  us 
grasps  more  than  a  fragment  of  it.  The  frag- 
ment which  other  people  grasp  may  be  very  dif- 
ferent from  our  own,  and  yet,  for  all  that,  they 
may  be  justified  in  believing  that  it  is  true.  As 
John  Newman  has  reminded  us,  there  are  regions 
of  thought  in  which  something  that  we  know  to  be 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     131 

false  is  the  nearest  approach  that  our  minds  can 
make  to  the  truth." 

It  Is  difficult  for  a  man  who  has  studied  and 
thought  upon  a  subject,  to  approach  Its  discussion 
with  a  wholly  unbiased  mind,  for  he  must  have 
received  some  Impressions  and  have  some  con- 
victions upon  the  subject.  Doubtless  Dr.  Thor- 
burn  in  his  Mythical  Interpretation  of  Christ 
realized  this  difficulty,  for  he  betrays  his  own 
bias  when  he  Informs  us  that  in  order  to  approach 
this  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  we  must  "first  of 
all  disembarrass  ourselves  of  sacramental  theories 
of  a  metaphysical  nature,  whether  they  be  those  of 
the  Middle  Ages  or  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  or 
later."  But  this  is  a  begging  of  the  question.  In 
the  study  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  all  important 
to  approach  it  with  a  judicial  mental  attitude  and 
in  the  spirit  of  humble  devotion,  recognizing  our 
human  limitations  and  the  transcendent  divine 
mystery  Involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the  presence 
of  the  Person  of  Christ,  which  surpasses  our  com- 
prehension and  hence  Is  beyond  the  power  of  any 
man  to  explain. 

This  is  no  reason,  however,  for  indifference  or 
neglect  to  devote  the  most  serious  contemplation 
in  the  endeavor  to  approach  as  nearly  as  possible 
to  a  reasonable  understanding  and  interpretation 


132  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

of  the  fundamental  concept  and  practical  design 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Such  a  reverent  view 
should  beget  in  us  the  Spirit  of  Christ  as  we  seek 
His  presence  and  guidance  into  this  the  very 
Holy  of  Holies  in  the  Christian  Religion. 

Surely  the  student  with  the  consciousness  of 
Christ's  presence,  should  steady  his  soul  and  safe- 
guard his  thoughts  and  speech  so  that  in  this  Holy 
Communion  where  the  whole  Church  of  Christ  is 
united  as  one  in  Christ,  in  redemption  and  in  love, 
there  may  be  no  spirit  of  hate  and  no  ambition  to 
denounce  nor  misrepresent  those  who  may  differ 
from  us;  but  we  should  seek  to  be  controlled  by 
the  Holy  Spirit's  guidance  who  has  promised  to 
take  the  things  of  Christ  and  show  them  unto  us, 
and  who  is  to  lead  us  into  all  the  truth.  It  is 
not  our  prejudice,  not  our  will  that  we  would 
have  prevail,  but  alone  the  Will  of  Christ  and 
His  interpretation  we  would  humbly  seek. 

Whilst  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
has  occupied  the  central  and  fundamental  place 
in  the  worship  of  the  Christian  Church,  it  is  no 
extravagant  speech  to  declare  that  it  has  been  the 
storm  centre  of  theological  controversy.  This 
has  been  due  to  the  variations  of  belief  as  to  the 
content  or  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Institu- 
tion, for  scholars  have  differed  greatly  as  to  their 
interpretation.     The  words  are  familiar  to  every 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper     133 

one  and  very  simple  in  meaning  when  taken  singly, 
but  when  joined  together  as  Jesus  used  them  on 
that  memorable  night  when  He  instituted  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  what  meaning  did  He  attach 
to  them  and  what  meaning  did  He  intend  that  they 
should  convey  to  His  disciples  and  to  the  Church 
Universal? 

They  are  momentous  words  for  us  as  they  have 
come  down  through  the  centuries  unchanged,  and 
as  they  were  spoken  by  our  Divine  Lord  and 
Master  in  whom  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily, — for  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling 
the  world  unto  Himself  when  He  came  to  save 
men  from  their  sins. 

The  chief  discussion  has  been  as  to  the  content 
and  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Institution: 
"This  is  my  body,"  and  given  In  the  four  accounts 
of  Scripture. 

In  times  past  much  has  been  made  of  that  little 
copula  "is,"  and  much  learning  has  been  expended 
to  prove  its  significance  or  its  original  absence  in 
the  Aramaic  language.  The  conclusions  have  not 
been  overwhelmingly  conclusive;  for  we  are  not' 
absolutely  sure  that  our  Saviour  spoke  those  words 
in  the  Aramaic  language,  though  most  probably 
He  did,  or  that  the  Apostle  Paul  received  them 
in  that  language — a  fact  to  be  accounted  for  be- 
fore the  argument  as  to  the  absence  of  that  copula 


134  Christ  an^  the  Lord's  Supper 

in  the  Aramaic  can  have  any  final  weight.  More- 
over we  beheve  that  undue  emphasis  has  been 
placed  here ;  for  we  have  not  to  do  with  a  hypo- 
thetical Aramaic  expression  in  which  the  locus 
classicus  does  not  exist;  for  the  crux  of  this  whole 
question  is  found  in  the  Greek  language,  as  given 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  in  I  Cor.  It  is  the 
only  text  that  we  have;  the  only  one  that  the 
Church  universal  has  had,  and  the  so-called  Ara- 
maic text  with  that  word  "is"  wanting,  does  not 
exist.  We  have  to  do  with  the  Greek  that  con- 
tains the  ear IV  ^  corresponding  to  our  English 
word  "is,"  but  the  exact  meaning  of  which  is  the 
question  of  dispute.  To  say  that  it  has  no  place 
in  Aramaic  does  not  decide  the  question  either 
way  for  us. 

Christ's  words  have  come  directly  to  us  through 
the  Greek  language ;  tovto  esriv  to  ccbfia  ijlov,  and 
with  this  we  have  to  do. 

What  meaning  did  Christ  Intend  that  His 
words  should  convey  to  His  disciples  and  to  His 
Church?    That  Is  the  question. 

The  written  account  of  St.  Paul  is  the  earliest 
account  that  we  have  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  al- 
though the  Gospels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Matthew 
were  written  not  long  after  and  independently  of 
the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  But  this  Epistle  is 
of  supreme  importance  inasmuch  as  Paul  may  be 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper      135 

said  to  give  us  his  Interpretation  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, in  the  significant  reference  to  the  eucharis- 
tic  cup  in  I  Cor.  10:16:  "The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ,  the  bread  which  we  break?  Is  it  not 
a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?" 

In  this  early  explanation  he  uses  forceful  lan- 
guage that  we  cannot  escape  by  saying  that  it  is 
only  figurative,  and  that  the  Apostle  did  not  mean 
what  he  really  wrote.  The  word  koivwvI'o.  Is  a 
strong  word  and  full  of  weighty  significance  in 
this  connection.  What  did  St.  Paul  mean  when 
he  spoke  of  the  cup  over  which  the  blessing  had 
been  pronounced,  as  "a  communion  or  participa- 
tion in  the  blood  of  Christ?" 

Would  critical  exegesis  decide  that  to  an  un- 
biased mind  the  natural  interpretation  of  the 
Apostle's  words  is  that  he  regarded  the  Eucha- 
rist merely  as  a  memorial  feast?  Then  the  Apos- 
tle, who  was  a  profound  thinker  ,  would  have 
plainly  said  so.  Can  we  conceive  of  the  writer 
having  such  a  simple  conception  when  he  wrote: 
"The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion 
(or  participation)  in  the  body  of  Christ?"  Nay, 
the  Apostle  Paul  had  a  far  deeper  and  richer 
meaning. 

It  was  not  the  mere  memorial  of  an  absent 
Christ,  but  the  ever-living  Christ  present  in  the 


136  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Lord's  Supper,  and  an  actual  union  between  the 
communicants  and  Christ,  Whom  they  received 
in  this  blessed  Sacrament. 

We  find  a  support  for  our  view  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  St.  Paul  from  an  unexpected  source. 
Prof.  Dr.  Andrews  of  the  Free  Church  in  an  ar- 
ticle on  the  Sacraments,  reaches  this  significant 
conclusion  in  his  thorough  study  of  the  subject 
in  the  light  of  Scriptures  and  history,  that  the 
pendulum  of  criticism  against  the  sacramental 
view  "has  swung  too  far,  and  the  whole  ques- 
tion must  be  restudied  in  the  light  of  modern 
critical  investigation."  In  summing  up,  he  says: 
"Taking  all  these  facts  together,  it  becomes  very 
doubtful  whether  any  theory  that  falls  short  of 
the  Lutheran  doctrine,  will  adequately  explain  the 
utterances  of  St.  Paul  in  reference  to  the  Eucha- 
rist. If  these  arguments  are  sound,  we  are  forced 
to  admit  that  as  far  as  exegesis  is  concerned  the 
sacramentarian  interpretation  of  Paulism  has  won 
a  decisive  victory,  and  the  Symbolical  school  has 
been  driven  off  the  field.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
whatever  that  baptism  and  the  Eucharist  stood 
for  far  more  in  the  life  of  the  Apostolic  Church 
than  they  do  in  the  estimation  of  the  bulk  of  the 
members  of  the  Free  Churches  to-day.  The  evi- 
dence seems  to  me  to  be  so  clear  upon  this  point 
as  to  amount  almost  to  demonstrative  proof." 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     137 

"There  is  a  feeling  in  some  quarters  that  the 
Free  Churches  have  never  yet  entered  into  the 
full  sacramental  heritage,  and  to  that  extent  their 
spiritual  life  has  been  beggared  and  impoverished. 
No  one  can  read  the  biographies  of  the  great 
mediaeval  saints  without  realizing  that  there  are 
whole  regions  of  spiritual  experience  which  are  a 
terra  incognita  to  ordinary  Free  Churchmen.  The 
difference  is  not  so  much  due  to  mysticism  as  to 
the  place  which  sacrament  holds  in  their  devo- 
tional life.  May  we  not  in  the  fervor  of  our  pro- 
test against  sacerdotalism,  have  allowed  our  icono- 
clasm  to  carry  us  too  far  and,  as  a  result,  have 
attached  too  light  a  value  to  ordinances  which 
to  other  Christians  have  been  not  merely  the  med- 
icine of  immortality  and  the  antidote  against  cor- 
ruption, as  Ignatius  put  it,  but  the  mainstay  of 
the  faith  of  the  soul  in  the  life  that  now  is?" 

He  would  advocate  a  return  to  the  sacramen- 
tarian  teaching  of  St,  Paul  and  the  other  writers 
of  the  New  Testament — "Is  it  possible  for  us  to 
go  the  length  to  which  Paulism  seems  to  carry  us? 
Can  we  accept  Luther's  interpretation  of  the  Eu- 
charist?" I  believe  he  could  without  difficulty  if 
he  understood  it  correctly  and  that  it  does  not 
mean  consubstantiation. 

So  much  depends  upon  our  spirit  and  method 
of  approach,  and  this  will  often  be  determined 


138  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

by  our  prepossessions  or  mental  bias.  One  day 
in  speaking  on  the  subject  to  a  layman  of  more 
than  ordinary  intelligence  and  a  worthy  elder  in 
a  prominent  church,  I  received  the  reply  that 
Christ  made  the  meaning  very  plain  when  he  said: 
"Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  and  that  it  was 
merely  a  memorial  of  His  suffering  and  death. 
The  man  was  perfectly  honest  in  his  expression, 
for  that  view  alone  had  been  impressed  upon  his 
mind  and  he  never  questioned  it. 

We  know  how  inadequate  such  a  method  is, 
for  the  words  quoted  were  not  intended  to  define 
the  actual  meaning  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  that 
we  must  rather  seek  in  Christ's  words:  "Take 
eat,  this  is  my  body."  These  are  the  words  that 
contain  the  crux,  and  these  have  been  the  storm 
centre  in  its  discussion. 

But  the  words:  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  do  not  even  appear  in  the  first  two  Gospels, 
and  it  may  be  an  interpolation  in  St.  Luke's  Gos- 
pel, as  some  able  critics  of  the  text  believe.  At 
all  events  we  know  that  it  is  not  contained  in  the 
two  oldest  Gospels.  St.  Mark's  is  the  oldest — 
written  between  the  years  6k,  and  70,  according 
to  Harnack  and  other  authorities.  No  doubt  as 
early  as  the  year  50,  earlier  documents  existed 
from  notes  made  of  the  words  that  Jesus  had 
spoken  and  the  impressions  made,  as  well  as  the 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     139 

circumstances  connected  with  them.  How  many 
had  written  down  such  memoranda  of  the  words 
of  Jesus  we  know  not,  nor  the  extent  of  such  writ- 
ings. Luke  sought  out  such  hterature  and  availed 
himself  of  various  transcripts,  but  the  first  to  give 
form  was  that  of  St.  Mark  in  the  Gospel  bearing 
his  name.  Moffatt  states  that  "the  earliest  sources 
upon  which  they  draw,  were  not  composed  till 
about  20  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  no 
one  took  down  the  words  of  Jesus  during  His 
lifetime.  Retentiveness  of  memory,  however,  and 
the  needs  of  the  Christian  halacha  in  the  churches, 
helped  to  carry  many  of  the  words  through  the 
preliminary  period  of  oral  tradition.  None  of 
them  is  the  direct  transcript  of  an  Apostle's  mem- 
ories, even  by  another  hand." 

Inasmuch  as  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  antedated 
that  of  St.  Matthew  by  some  years,  hence  for 
several  years  at  least,  if  not  a  longer  period,  there 
was  but  one  Gospel  in  the  churches — at  first  there 
was  but  one  copy  of  this  Gospel.  But  naturally 
it  was  early  copied  so  that  other  churches  might 
be  supplied  with  the  written  Gospel. 

Let  us  go  back  through  the  centuries  to  the 
primitive  Church,  when  St.  Mark  was  the  only 
Gospel  that  they  had.  What  impression  did  they 
get  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  when 
they  read  from  St.  Mark's  Gospel  the  words  of 


I40  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  Institution,  when  Jesus  blessed  and  brake  the 
bread,  and  gave  to  them  and  said:  "Take  ye: 
this  is  my  body,"  etc.?  The  words  "Do  this  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  did  not  appear  in  the  first 
Gospel  read  and  heard.  Not  a  word  in  the  text 
to  suggest  that  the  Lord's  Supper  had  only  a 
symbolical  character  and  was  intended  as  a  me- 
morial and  nothing  more.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew,  for  there 
is  no  suggestion  of  the  modern  theory  that  the 
Holy  Eucharist  meant  only  a  memorial  service 
to  commemorate  the  absent  Lord,  who  had  suf- 
fered and  died  for  them. 

I  am  not  unmindful  that  the  first  Epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  written  early  in  the  year 
55,  contains  the  words  not  found  in  Mark  and 
Matthew,  but  that  does  not  detract  from  the 
force  of  my  reasoning,  for  the  supply  of  these 
manuscripts  furnished  to  the  churches  was  lim- 
ited because  of  the  peculiar  circumstances;  and  for 
some  years  some  churches  would  have  but  one 
manuscript  of  the  Gospels  or  Epistles  of  Paul. 
It  was  not  in  the  days  of  printing  and  there  were 
serious  diflliculties  in  the  way  of  having  the  copies 
made,  for  not  only  were  the  members  poor  and 
generally  unlearned,  but  without  necessary  in- 
fluence to  overcome  prejudice  and  fear  on  the 
part  of  the  specialists  engaged  in  the  work  of 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      141 

copying  manuscripts  for  the  despised  persecuted 
Christians;  who  were  under  the  ban  of  the  Empire. 

Dr.  Alexander  MacLaren,  writing  concerning 
the  Lord's  Supper,  states  that  "Marie  14:22  omits 
the  affecting,  'Do  this  for  remembering  me,' 
which  is  presupposed  by  the  very  act  of  instituting 
the  ordinances,  since  it  is  nothing  if  not  memorial; 
and  it  makes  prominent  two  things — the  signifi- 
cance of  the  elements  and  the  command  to  par- 
take of  them"  (p.  179).  MacLaren  is  not  con- 
sistent, for  on  page  180  he  says:  "The  Lord's 
Supper  is  the  conclusive  answer  to  the  allegation 
that  Christ  did  not  teach  the  sacrificial  character 
and  atoning  power  of  His  death."  What  then 
did  He  teach  when  He  said:  "This  is  my  blood 
of  the  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many"?  But 
why  does  MacLaren  so  thoroughly  ignore  the 
meaning  of  these  words,  when  substituting  words 
that  do  not  appear,  in  order  to  explain  away  the 
real  essence  and  persuade  others  as  well  as  him- 
self, that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  nothing  but  a  memo- 
rial? Such  exegesis  is  pure  dogmatism  in  order 
to  support  a  cherished  theory;  but  is  not  scien- 
tific nor  characteristic  of  the  critical  temper  of 
the  historical  student  in  search  for  the  truth  from 
authoritative  sources. 

He  not  only  betrays  his  bias  in  taking  such 
undue  liberty  with  the  words  of  Scripture  to  sup- 


142  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

port  his  views,  but  he  shows  his  antipathy  toward* 
a  different  view.  I  was  pained  when  glancing 
throughVol.IIIof  his  "Expositions  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture," page  285,  of  John,  to  read  these  words, 
following  his  Zwinglian  ideas  concerning  the 
Lord's  Supper,  for  it  is  nothing  more  than  "purely 
and  simply  a  rite  of  remembrance,"  he  says  the 
Zwinglian  methods  "do  look  very  bald  and  bare 
by  the  side  of  modern  notions  and  mediaeval  no- 
tions resuscitated.  Well,  I  had  rather  have  the 
bareness  than  I  would  have  it  overlaid  by  cover- 
ings under  which  there  is  room  for  abundance  of 
vermin." 

This  is  evidently  dogmatism  of  a  pronounced 
character,  but  it  is  not  sound  exegesis,  nor  rever- 
ent criticism  where  reverence  is  naturally  expected; 
for  inasmuch  as  the  Lord  commands  us  to  rev- 
erence His  Sanctuary,  we  are  expected  to  be  no 
less  reverent  in  our  behavior  respecting  the  Sac- 
rament of  the  Altar;  for  severe  chastisements 
came  upon  the  Corinthian  Church  because  of  their 
irreverent  abuses  and  utter  failure  to  distinguish 
the  distinct  and  sacred  character  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

We  cannot  but  deplore  such  an  utter  abuse  of 
sound  and  reverent  exegesis  on  the  part  of  a  vet- 
eran expositor  who  has  been  admired  for  the  spir- 
itual character  of  his  writings.     It  lacks  the  ju- 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      143 

diclal  balance  of  a  conscientious  scholar  who  will 
not  juggle  with  words,  and  even  suppress  the 
plain  records  of  the  Gospel  in  order  that  his  own 
views  may  prevail — as  we  shall  see. 

We  can  only  deplore  his  dogmatic  expression 
that  "Do  this  for  remembering  me,  is  presupposed 
by  the  very  act  of  instituting  the  ordinance,  since 
it  is  nothing  if  not  memorial."  Such  an  emptying 
of  the  sacrament  of  all  Divine  content,  is  serious; 
but  the  offensive  word  that  he  injects  is  next  to 
sacrilege.  There  is  this  apology  however  for 
him,  in  the  fact  that  to  him  this  ordinance  is 
nothing  but  memorial,  and  he  sees  not  in  it  the 
Divine  content  of  the  Person  of  Christ  that  St. 
Paul  recognized  and  emphasized  when  he  wrote 
the  warning  words:  "For  he  that  eateth  and 
drinketh,  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  him- 
self, if  he  discern  not  the  body." 

This  prejudice  warped  his  judgment,  and  his 
sense  of  proper  expression  of  the  sacred  content 
of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  but 
it  evidently  has  little  meaning  and  solemnity  for 
him.  Neither  does  he  appear  to  be  very  sensi- 
tive respecting  his  representations  or  misrepre- 
sentations of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  sacrament,  for  he  states  that  "Jesus 
Christ  said  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  to  be  ob- 
served 'in  remembrance  of  me.'     That  was  his 


144  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

explanation  of  its  purpose,  and  I  for  one  am  con- 
tent to  take  as  the  expounder  of  the  laws  of  the 
feast,  the  feast's  own  Founder."  Doubtless  he 
intended  this  statement  for  wit,  and  I  have  no 
contention  on  this  point,  except  to  affirm  that  it 
contains  neither  reason  nor  the  truth.  He  knew 
very  well  when  he  wrote  these  words  that  the 
language  of  Jesus  the  Founder,  as  recorded  in 
the  Gospels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Matthew,  do  not 
contain  these  words,  and  that  possibly  their  ap- 
pearance in  St.  Luke  is  an  interpolation.  Hence 
why  does  he  base  his  argument  and  draw  his  in- 
fallible conclusion  from  a  hypothetical  statement 
that  he  would  inject  into  the  first  two  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  without  due  qualification,  he  would 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  as  well  as  his  own 
interpretation  thereof?  This  shows  the  power  of 
prejudice  when  an  expositor  of  God's  Word  will 
deliberately  eliminate  or  suppress,  by  ignoring  the 
very  words  of  Jesus  in  two  of  the  Gospels,  and 
substituting  others  in  order  to  support  his  theory, 
and  mislead  his  readers. 

I  am  not  called  upon  to  prove  the  impossible 
— that  Mark  and  his  readers  and  hearers  were 
not  familiar  with  the  words  in  question,  but  I 
contend  that  we  have  no  right  to  read  our  words 
into  his  narrative,  but  we  must  confine  ourselves 
to  the  original  text.    We  cannot  know  the  several 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     145 

independent  and  primary  sources  from  which  he 
derived  his  text,  and  we  cannot  assert  author- 
itatively that  he  merely  omitted  the  "Do  this 
in  remembrance  of  me"  for  the  sake  of  brevity. 
No  doubt  we  have  the  most  abbreviated  form  in 
Mark  and  Matthew  who  followed  him,  but  un- 
questionably Mark  embodied  the  most  essential 
features  as  he  understood  them,  and  he  would  not 
omit  the  fundamental  element  in  the  Eucharist 
for  the  sake  of  brevity,  thereby  sacrificing  the  very 
content  of  this  Holy  Sacrament.  The  words  of 
supreme  importance  were:  "This  is  my  body," 
and  they  may  have  been  accompanied  with  some 
explanation  of  their  profound  mystical  meaning — 
by  the  speaker;  and  the  words  "Do  this,"  etc., 
may  have  appeared  very  early  in  the  ritual  of  the 
Church;  but  our  contention  is  that  they  did  not 
appear  in  the  earliest  Gospels  of  St.  Mark  and  St. 
Matthew,  and  had  the  writers  regarded  them  of 
supreme  importance  then  they  would  not  have 
failed  to  give  them  in  what  was  to  be  the  central 
Rite  in  the  Church. 

If  the  purport  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  only  a 
memorial  of  Christ's  death,  then  why  not  sub- 
stitute in  its  stead  a  more  positive  and  significant 
symbol, — one  which  is  not  only  the  peculiar  prop- 
erty of  the  Gospel,  but  which  is  inseparable  from 
Christ?    I  mean  the  cross  that  Jesus  bore  for  us 


146  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

and  on  which  He  died  to  save  us.  No  one  could 
ever  be  mistaken  when  he  contemplates  the  cross. 
The  power  of  association  is  irresistible  here,  and 
to  look  upon  the  cross  is  to  look  into  the  face  of 
the  suffering  Christ  who  died  for  us  on  the  cross. 
We  cannot  say  the  same  of  mere  bread  and  wine; 
for  neither  one  in  itself  nor  together  are  so  in- 
dissolubly  associated  with  our  Lord.  They  were 
common  articles  of  daily  food  and  drink  for  all 
classes  of  people  in  Palestine  irrespective  of  their 
religious  faith  and  life.  But  the  cross  had  a  sym- 
bolical meaning  that  could  neither  be  confused  nor 
overlooked.  It  was  the  symbol  of  God's  love  and 
man's  redemption.  No  symbol  in  all  the  world  is 
so  sacred  or  so  rich  in  meaning;  for  it  stands  for 
Christ  and  Him  alone  on  Calvary.  It  is  by  this 
sign  that  we  conquer. 

In  the  Museum  at  Ueno,  Tokio,  I  saw  those 
interesting  symbols  that  were  devised  by  the  gov- 
ernment with  a  view  of  discovering  the  Japanese 
Christians  so  as  to  stamp  out  Christianity  in 
Japan  in  the  beginning  of  the  17th  century  when 
the  converts  were  estimated  at  one  million.  The 
persecutors,  knowing  the  sacredness  of  the  cross, 
determined  that  the  Christians  should  either 
trample  upon  it  or  expose  themselves  to  death  by 
refusal.  Hence  at  the  great  thoroughfares,  all 
had   to   pass  through   narrow   passages   on   the 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     147 

ground  of  which  were  placed  plates  of  copper 
on  which  were  in  relief,  representations  of  Christ's 
sufferings  on  the  cross.  The  pagan  had  no  scruples 
for  that  symbol,  but  the  Christian  convert  re- 
fused to  trample  upon  the  figure  that  meant  his 
Saviour;  and  thus  the  spies  detected  many  Chris- 
tians among  the  Japanese,  who  accordingly  paid 
the  death  penalty  for  their  faith,  during  the  two 
centuries  that  this  infamous  edict  remained  in 
force.  The  historic  meaning  of  the  cross  was 
unmistakable. 

Inasmuch  as  the  words:  "This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me,"  are  not  contained  in  St.  Mark, 
St.  Matthew,  and  probably  not  originally  in  St. 
Luke,  but  alone  in  I  Cor.,  therefore  some  would 
claim  for  St.  Paul  an  entirely  independent  source, 
— because  the  passage  in  question  is  found  in  no 
other  record.  But  no  one  who  has  seriously  stud- 
ied the  subject  could  be  influenced  by  those  who 
claim  that  St.  Paul  originated  this  Sacrament,  and 
that  the  Jewish  Christians  received  it  from  him. 
Such  a  conclusion  is  incredible,  for  the  ordinance 
was  observed  among  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem 
before  the  Apostle  became  a  convert  to  Christian- 
ity. It  is  also  inconceivable  that  the  primitive 
Church  could  ever  have  taken  the  initiative  in 
introducing  this  Supper  of  the  Lord  as  a  substi- 
tute that  was  to  supersede  the  Jewish  Passover. 


148  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

There  is  only  one  way  of  accounting  for  its  imme- 
diate and  dominant  central  place  in  the  worship 
of  the  early  Church,  and  that  was  the  universal 
faith  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Himself  had  instituted 
it  with  Divine  authority  and  with  the  assurance 
of  His  presence  in  that  Sacrament.  Neither  the 
disciples  nor  St.  Paul,  without  the  sanction  and 
guidance  of  Christ  who  instituted  it,  could  ever 
have  given  to  it  the  overmastering  influence  that 
it  has  exerted  through  the  Christian  centuries. 

Headlam  declares  that:  "On  no  ordinary  theory 
of  probability  is  it  possible  to  believe  that  the  ac- 
count in  St.  Mark's  Gospel  was  drawn  from  that 
of  St.  Paul  in  any  way  at  all?  St.  Paul's  account 
might  be  a  development  of  that  of  St.  Mark:  that 
of  St.  Mark  cannot  be  derived  from  or  developed 
from  that  of  St.  Paul.  What  is  true  in  this  par- 
ticular case  is  true  about  the  whole  Gospel."  "St. 
Paul's  Gospel  was  the  same  as  that  of  other 
preachers  of  the  primitive  Church." 

While  St.  Paul  gives  us  the  first  written  account 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  must  not  overestimate 
the  significance  of  this  fact  and  conclude  that  the 
first  knowledge  of  its  existence  is  traceable  to 
him,  for  as  Plummer  states,  "this  does  not  for  a 
moment  imply  that  he  was  the  first  to  teach  Chris- 
tians to  'do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.'     This- 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     149 

passage  Implies  that  repeated  celebrations  were  al- 
ready a  firmly  established  practice." 

The  authority  of  St.  Paul  was  quite  inadequate 
to  this  immense  result.  Nothing  less  than  the 
authority  of  Christ  would  have  sufficed  to  pro- 
duce it.  Paul  himself  tells  us  whence  he  received 
the  information.  The  source  of  it  was  Christ — 
not  necessarily  direct,  but  through  the  immediate 
agency  of  the  disciples  who  had  heard  the  words 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus.  Whilst  we  cannot  tell 
with  absolute  certainty  just  how  he  received  the 
information,  this  seems  the  most  reasonable,  for 
there  was  no  necessity  for  special,  supernatural 
revelation  when  actual  witnesses  were  available. 
It  is  the  unimpeachable  fact  that  we  have  to  do 
with  the  unquestioned  testimony  of  the  writer  who 
makes  his  appeal  to  that  memorable  night  when 
Christ  instituted  the  Supper;  and  none  could  deny 
the  fact. 

Professor  Percy  Gardner  maintains  that  St. 
Paul  is  the  author  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  to 
this  McGiffert  replies  in  the  Apostolic  Age  as 
follows  :  "It  is  Inconceivable  that  the  Jewish  wing 
of  the  Church  would  have  taken  it  up  had  it  orig- 
inated with  him.  Its  general  prevalence  at  an  early 
day  in  all  parts  of  the  Church,  can  be  accounted 
for  only  on  the  assumption  that  it  was  pre-Paul- 


150  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ine.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Mark  and 
Matthew,  so  far  as  they  agree,  represent  the  prim- 
itive tradition  as  to  Christ's  words.  We  must  go 
back  to  Mark  for  the  primitive  form." 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  ate  the  Last 
Supper  with  His  disciples,  as  recorded  In  all  three 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  that  He  said  of  the 
bread  which  He  broke  and  gave  to  His  compan- 
ions: 'This  is  my  body,'  and  of  the  wine  which 
He  gave  them  to  drink,  'This  is  my  blood  of  the 
covenant  which  is  shed  for  many,'  and  that  He  did 
it  with  a  reference  to  His  approaching  death.  As 
the  bread  was  broken  and  the  wine  poured  out, 
so  must  His  body  be  broken  and  His  blood  shed, 
but  not  in  vain"  (p.  69) .  "The  Lord's  Supper  was 
eaten  by  the  primitive  disciples  of  Jerusalem,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  everywhere  cel- 
ebrated in  the  Churches  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 
The  only  description  of  It  which  we  have  In  the 
literature  of  the  period,  is  found  in  Paul's  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians"  (p.  537). 

Whilst  this  Epistle  was  written  anterior  to  any 
of  the  Gospels,  It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
there  were  not  In  existence  partially  written  ac- 
counts of  the  Sayings  of  Jesus;  and  St.  Mark  may 
have  been  able  to  make  use  of  such  a  document 
that  was  earlier  by  some  years  than  the  First 
Epistle  to  the   Corinthians.     At   all  events  the 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     151 

Gospels  were  entirely  independent  of  the  Apostle 
St.  Paul.  On  the  other  hand  he  naturally  obtained 
his  information  from  certain  ones  of  the  disciples, 
notably  St.  Peter — with  whom  he  spent  15  days 
m  Jerusalem,  and  that  knowledge  came  to  the 
disciple  direct  from  the  Lord;  and  hence  as  the 
sole  intermediary,  St.  Paul  could  truthfully  say 
that  his  communication  respecting  the  Lord's 
Supper  came  from  the  Lord  and  was  not  the 
speculations  nor  fabrications  of  men.  He  had 
every  reason  to  be  convinced  as  to  the  Divine 
source,  though  not  directly  communicated  to  him, 
but  through  the  disciples,  and  the  authenticity  was 
unquestioned.  Hence  he  wrote  in  such  positive 
language — with  a  feeling  of  absolute  certainty. 

This  early  account  of  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  the  city  of  Corinth,  shows  how 
well  known  this  Sacrament  must  have  been  at  that 
time. 

Already  abuses  had  sprung  up,  and  hence  St. 
Paul  writes  his  Epistle  to  correct  the  evils  and 
to  set  before  them  the  facts  connected  with  the 
divine  origin  and  character  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
so  unique  and  sacred  that  it  must  not  be  confound- 
ed with  the  ordinary  feasts  of  the  pagans  about 
them;  for  this  is  indeed  the  Lord's  Supper  and 
Christ's  Presence  is  in  this  Holy  Eucharist. 

St.   Paul  doubtless   obtained  this  information 


152  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  directly  from  the 
Apostles,  although  he  gives  us  the  earliest  and 
oldest  written  account.  The  reason  that  the  Gos- 
pels were  not  written  earlier  were  two-fold.  In 
the  first  place  there  was  no  occasion  inasmuch  as 
the  living  witnesses  were  the  teachers  and  preach- 
ers of  Christ  and  His  Word.  They  had  seen 
and  heard  Him,  and  people  would  have  greatly 
preferred  to  receive  their  knowledge  directly  from 
these  witnesses,  who  testified  what  they  personally 
knew  and  heard  than  to  have  read  it  from  a  man- 
uscript. Just  as  we  to-day  prefer  to  hear  men 
tell  us  what  they  themselves  saw  in  some  strange 
country,  rather  than  read  the  book  written  by  one 
who  obtained  his  knowledge  from  secondary 
sources.  We  know  what  feelings  are  awakened 
when  we  find  an  old  volume  published  in  the  days 
of  the  author  who  describes  what  he  actually  saw 
among  the  nations  of  our  country  175  years  ago. 

When  I  Cor.  was  written,  the  Gospels  were 
not  known,  and  the  small  assemblies  that  made  up 
the  early  Churches  were  composed,  for  the  most 
part,  of  people  in  humble  circumstances,  un- 
learned and  not  influential.  The  Apostles  visited 
them  and  told  them  of  Jesus  and  what  He  said. 
Of  course  the  only  Sacred  Scriptures  that  they 
had  were  the  Old  Testament — in  rolls,  and  hence 
they  were  entirely  dependent  upon  the  voice  of 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper     153 

the  preachers  who  at  first  were  the  Apostles  them- 
selves. The  churches  were  limited,  and  there 
seemed  no  immediate  occasion  for  writing  the 
Gospels  as  a  sacred  canon  for  the  remote  future, 
because  there  was  a  general  expectation  that 
Christ  would  soon  come  again,  and  hence  the 
Gospels  were  not  written  earlier;  and  St.  Paul 
may  never  have  seen  a  copy  of  any  of  them.  In 
fact  it  may  be  truly  said  that  the  Synoptics  were 
crystallizations  of  the  Gospel  that  had  been 
preached  in  the  early  Churches.  The  words  had 
become  familiar  by  being  repeated  over  and  over 
again,  by  the  Apostles  and  by  those  who  had 
heard  them  from  the  lips  of  eye-witnesses  or  from 
special  written  sources. 

If  we  hold  to  the  Lutheran  view  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Eucharist  then  the  view  of  our  Church 
must  harmonize  with  the  teachings  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  for  they  are  the  fundamental  rule  for 
our  faith  and  practice.  This  is  the  norm  by  which 
our  doctrine  is  to  be  tested,  and  by  this  alone  it 
can  stand.  We  are  justified  in  making  our  appeal 
at  all  times  to  Christ's  own  words.  We  have  no 
other  standard,  and  these  will  continue  to  be  the 
standard  for  all  time,  for  Christ  declared: 
"Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away."  Hence  the  foundation 
for  our  doctrine  is  secure.     We  take  the  identi- 


154  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

cal  words  of  the  Institution,  and  allow  them  to 
stand  for  each  communicant  as  he  comes  to  meet 
his  Lord  and  Saviour  at  the  Holy  Communion. 
We  do  not  add  nor  subtract  from  these  momen- 
tous words  spoken  by  the  Son  of  God  who  is  really 
present  in  that  Supper.  He  fully  understood  what 
He  said,  and  He  meant  all  He  said;  and  had  He 
intended  less,  then  He  would  have  spoken  accord- 
ingly. Hence  we  dare  not  subtract  anything  from 
His  words  nor  add  thereto  by  way  of  substitution 
in  order  not  to  discern  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  That  might  lessen  the  Divine 
Mystery  but  in  the  same  degree  it  would  lessen 
the  actual  content  and  precious  meaning  as  a  spe- 
cial and  substantial  means  of  grace. 

Such  an  unwarranted  method  involves  too  great 
a  sacrifice  and  we  do  not  escape  mystery;  and  the 
intellectual  difficulties,  have  not  been  removed. 
Far  better  we  believe,  to  repeat  to  the  communi- 
cant the  very  words  spoken  by  Christ  Himself, 
unchanged  and  undiluted  by  any  rationalizing 
method  to  get  rid  of  the  power  and  presence  of 
Christ,  the  God-man,  who  ever  remains  the  same 
undivided  Divine  and  human  Saviour,  boundless 
in  power,  omnipresent,  and  hence  able  to  be  pres- 
ent also  in  the  Holy  Sacrament;  but  how  we  are 
not  called  upon  to  explain,  but  merely  in  faith  and 
love  to  obey  Him  who  says  to  the  communicant: 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     155 

"Take,  eat,  this  Is  my  body."  Christ  thoroughly 
understands  them — they  are  no  empty  words,  but 
they  contain  and  convey  to  the  faithful  communi- 
cant a  precious  and  special  blessing,  for  it  is  no 
less  than  Christ  Himself.  This  full  measure 
of  grace  is  what  our  people  realize.  The  Holy 
Communion  in  accordance  with  Christ's  words 
means  much  to  them,  and  with  proper  prepara- 
tion they  come  expecting  much,  and  they  are  not 
disappointed.  No  matter  how  much  Christ's 
words  contain  He  will  not  disappoint  us;  He  is 
inexhaustible,  and  He  can  and  will  keep  His 
word.  There  is  no  occasion  for  anxiety  or  doubt 
here,  He  will  abundantly  meet  His  obligation 
when  we  come  In  faith  and  loving  devotion;  for 
whilst  He  is  Invisible  to  us.  He  sees  us  and  knows 
our  needs,  and  He  who  died  for  us  on  the  cross 
and  rose  again  for  our  salvation,  He  will  not  with- 
hold Himself  from  us  in  His  Holy  Supper. 

He  is  not  afar  off,  seated  somewhere  in  heaven; 
for  He  is  not  localized  nor  restricted,  but  He  is 
here  also  on  earth  among  humanity — those  whom 
God  loves  as  His  own  children  and  for  whom 
Christ  died.  Yea  this  Christ  who  said:  "Lo  I 
am  with  you  alway,"  why  stumble  at  the  doc- 
trine of  His  real  presence  in  the  Eucharist,  and 
insist  upon  excluding  Him  here  at  His  own  altar? 
Why  not  find  fault  with  St.  Paul  for  using  the 


156  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

strong  language  he  does  concerning  our  "com- 
munion or  participation  with  the  body  of  Christ" 
in  the  Lord's  Supper?  The  difficulties  are  only- 
increased,  instead  of  lessened  by  taking  a  lower 
view  than  that  held  by  our  Church,  for  there  re- 
mains too  much  to  be  explained  away,  if  we  would 
make  it  only  a  memorial  of  Christ's  sufferings 
and  death.  Is  it  consistent  to  reason  thus  and 
discount  entirely  the  words  that  Jesus  attached 
to  these  elements?  Surely  Christ  did  not  utter 
meaningless  words.  On  that  solemn  occasion,  on 
the  eve  of  Calvary  He  fully  realized  the  solemnity 
of  the  Institution,  and  He  knew  what  language 
meant,  and  surely  He  did  not  speak  empty  words. 
Are  we  justified  in  saying  so  by  declaring  that 
they  are  purely  figurative  and  contain  no  special 
content  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  but  that  He  is 
absent  and  only  present  through  the  Holy  Spirit? 
Why  deprive  Christ's  own  words  of  their  inesti- 
mable value?  for  the  communicant  who  realizes 
his  sins  and  need  of  the  Saviour,  wants  to  meet 
that  same  Christ  in  this  Sacrament. 

"Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day, 
yea  and  forever."  The  burden  of  proof  must  lie 
with  those  who  would  eliminate  the  undivided 
oneness  of  Christ's  presence  from  this  Sacrament 
by  seeking  to  explain  away  the  content  of  Christ's 
own  words. 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper     157 

The  Lutheran  Church  acknowledges  the  pro- 
found mystery  involved,  but  her  position  is  safe 
in  accepting  Christ's  words  as  spoken;  and  she 
does  not  feel  warranted  in  explaining  them  away 
even  though  we  may  not  be  able  thoroughly  to 
explain  them.  In  obedience  to  His  gracious  words 
we  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper  expecting  to  find 
the  presence  of  Christ  in  it  and  to  receive  much 
from  Him;  and  we  are  not  disappointed.  We 
greatly  prefer  to  accept  the  historic  Christ  who 
came  from  God  the  Father  for  man's  salvation, 
and  to  listen  to  the  words  that  He  uttered  when 
He  instituted  the  Eucharist.  We  do  not  seek 
a  different  Christ,  but  He  alone  who  announced 
Himself  as  the  God-man;  and  whatever  He  said 
that  would  we  believe  and  do  in  this  objective 
teaching.  We  know  but  one  Christ,  the  true  Im- 
mamiel — God  with  us,  in  Christ  Jesus.  That  was 
the  Jesus  of  the  primitive  Church,  whom  they 
knew,  believed  and  worshipped  as  the  Christ  of 
God,  for  He  alone  was  the  Christ  of  the  Gospel, 
and  His  presence  we  would  discern  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  by  faith  in  His  Word. 

Have  not  Protestant  churches  at  times  made  a 
mistake  in  putting  the  supreme  emphasis  on  the 
words  of  the  preacher,  and  losing  sight  entirely  of 
profound  meditation  and  communion  with  God  in 
the  services  of  the  Church?    This  sad  fact  is  un- 


158  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

mistakable  in  the  common  language  of  to-day 
when  inviting  some  one  to  their  Church,  for  in- 
stead of  saying:  "We  would  like  to  have  you 
come  and  worship  with  us,"  they  say:  "You 
ought  to  come  and  hear  our  preacher."  Such  sig- 
nificant invitations  tell  their  own  story;  but  why 
not  come  to  worship  God,  and  meditate  upon  His 
Word?  The  soul  needs  to  commune  with  Him  with 
whom  we  have  to  do,  and  this  should  be  the  chief 
end  of  our  coming  to  the  sanctuary.  This  is  es- 
pecially true  when  we  come  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, for  then  we  would  commune  with  Him  alone, 
and  meditate  upon  the  very  words  He  spoke  when 
He  instituted  this  sacred  ordinance.  Does  it  not 
appear  most  unseemly  for  frail  and  sinful  man, 
utterly  to  ignore  these  words  of  Christ  that  are 
absolutely  inseparable  from  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  necessary  to  make  it  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
instead  of  Christ's  own  words,  substitute  what  we 
in  our  human  conceit  presume  that  He  ought  to 
have  said.  How  can  we  justify  ourselves  in  tell- 
ing the  people  to  accept  our  words,  and  not 
Christ's  if  they  would  know  the  truth  concerning 
the  significance  of  the  Holy  Communion?  Nay 
Christ's  words  shall  never  pass  away,  and  he  who 
would  come  to  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  and  com- 
mune with  Him  must  ponder  only  the  words  of 
Christ  in  the  Institution:     "Take,  eat;  this  is  my 


Presence  of  Christ  in   the  Lord's  Supper      159 

body."  Let  the  communicant  take  these  words 
alone  and  meditate  upon  them,  for  there  can  be 
no  others.  These  are  Christ's  words,  and  He 
who  Is  the  Truth  made  no  mistake  when  He  ut- 
tered them.  They  have  come  down  through  the 
Churches  unchanged  for  nearly  nineteen  centuries, 
and  they  will  remain  until  the  end  of  time.  Med- 
itate upon  them  alone  when  you  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  you  will  find  Christ  there  as  your 
Lord  and  Saviour. 

We  acknowledge  the  profound  and  Impene- 
trable mystery  Involved  in  the  words  of  Christ 
spoken  on  that  memorable  occasion;  and  whilst 
we  cannot  make  them  plain  and  present  an  Infalli- 
ble solution  as  to  their  philosophy  and  how  these 
things  can  be,  we  nevertheless  cling  to  the  words 
of  Christ  without  revision  and  without  denial — 
for  His  words  cannot  pass  away,  and  we  dare 
not  take  from  them  nor  add  thereto,  just  because 
they  surpass  our  comprehension  and  power  to  ex- 
plain them.  We  dare  not  separate  the  humanity 
from  the  Divinity  in  Christ  in  the  Presence  of 
His  Person  In  the  Lord's  Supper;  for  we  can 
know  only  the  one  Indivisible  Christ  who  con- 
tinues the  same  forevermore. 

The  fact  that  it  Is  an  inexplicable  mystery  must 
not  disturb  our  faith,  for  we  cannot  fathom  the 
mind  and  the  ways  of  the  Almighty  In  accommo- 


i6o  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

dating  Himself  to  the  needs  of  humanity,  and  we 
must  not  insist  upon  limiting^  Him  by  our  human 
limitations.  In  fact  we  are  in  the  realm  of  mys- 
tery as  soon  as  we  enter  the  domain  of  religion; 
for  we  have  to  do  with  the  unseen  and  the  In- 
finite One.  Nevertheless  the  things  with  which 
we  have  to  do  are  not  unreasonable  nor  impos- 
sible with  Him,  for  all  things  are  possible  with 
the  Infinite  God.    The  most  real  things  are  unseen. 

By  the  terms  flesh  and  blood  or  body  as  used 
in  the  Scriptures,  we  understand  them  to  mean 
what  is  embraced  in  the  human  nature  or  human- 
ity of  Christ  Jesus.  According  to  Dean  Goul- 
burn,  when  we  engage  in  the  sacramental  act  by 
taking  the  consecrated  elements,  the  bread  and 
wine,  they  are  "not  only  the  sign  and  symbol  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  also  the  in- 
strument of  conveying,  in  some  highly  mysterious 
way,  far  above  out  of  our  reach,  an  actual  par- 
ticipation in  His  crucified  Human  Nature,  ac- 
cording to  St.  Paul,  I  Cor.  io:i6.  In  the  well 
known  words  he  becomes  his  own  interpreter  of 
the  words  of  the  Institution  that  he  records  in  the 
following  chapter,  and  we  would  abide  by  his  ex- 
planation." 

As  the  learned  Hooker  writes:  "The  bread 
and  cup  are  His  body  and  blood,  because  they  are 
causes  instrumental  upon  the  receipt  whereof  the 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      i6i 

participation  of  His  body  and  blood  ensueth.  Our 
participation  of  Christ  in  this  sacrament  depend- 
eth  on  the  co-operation  of  His  omnipresent  power 
which  maketh  it  His  body  and  blood.  Let  It 
therefore  be  sufficient  for  me,  presenting  myself 
at  the  Lord's  Table  to  know  what  there  I  receive 
from  Him,  without  searching  or  inquiring  of  the 
manner  how  Christ  performeth  His  promise." 

The  Lutheran  Church  is  perfectly  safe  in  her 
position  in  holding  unequivocally  to  the  words  of 
the  Institution  without  trying  to  explain  away  their 
content,  and  thereby  eliminating  from  them  the 
real  Presence  of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  mak- 
ing them  rather  symbolical  than  sacramental.  To 
state  that  Christ  is  really  present  through  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  too  indefinite  and  unsatisfactory  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  substitute  for  the  real  objective  pres- 
ence of  Christ  Himself.  Not  a  divided  and  par- 
tial Christ,  but  the  same  Christ  of  history,  who 
became  incarnate  when  the  Logos  became  Flesh 
and  dwelt  among  men.  We  need  the  same  Christ, 
and  no  human  device. 

We,  too,  like  the  ancient  Greeks,  would  see 
Jesus.  There  is  power  in  the  personal  Christ  and 
nothing  else  can  satisfy  the  human  soul.  God 
must  manifest  Himself  through  a  person  that  men 
could  see  and  hear.  "Show  us  the  Father,  and  it 
sufficeth  us,"  expresses  the  universal  need.      Ab- 


1 62  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

stract  teachings  concerning  God's  love  would  not 
satisfy.  It  would  not  be  comprehensible  by  the 
human  mind.  Love  must  express  itself  indeed 
through  a  person.  It  must  be  seen  in  service,  in 
sacrifice  for  man.  Christ  foresaw  all  this  when 
He  said:  "And  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  myself."  In  that  match- 
less love  that  led  Jesus  to  the  cross,  actions  spoke 
louder  than  words,  and  no  power  is  comparable 
with  it;  for  the  cross  showed  God's  love  and  man's 
redemption.  When  Jesus  wept  at  the  tomb  of 
Lazarus,  they  said:  "Behold  how  He  loved  him," 
but  on  the  cross  we  behold  the  full  measure  of 
that  boundless  love. 

It  is  this  same  Christ,  the  God-man  who  is 
present  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  every  human 
soul  needs.  Every  tempted  and  tried  child  of 
humanity  struggling  to  do  the  will  of  God  in  his 
service  for  mankind,  but  ever  conscious  of  sin  and 
his  many  shortcomings — always  earnestly  praying 
and  striving  to  be  better,  finds  precious  consola- 
tion and  assurance  in  meeting  the  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  who  once  dwelt  in  a  human  form 
with  a  human  nature  (tempted  in  all  points  like 
as  we  are,  but  without  sin),  and  who  can  fully 
sympathize  with  us.  We  come  with  confidence  as 
we  look  into  the  face  of  the  same   Christ  who 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      163 

said  to  the  repentant  sinner:     "Thy  sins  be  for- 
given thee.     Go  and  sin  no  more." 

He  sympathizes  with  us  in  our  infirmities,  and 
we  realize  His  fellowship  and  forgiveness  as  we 
commune  with  Him.  We  believe  and  receive  as 
He  says:  "Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,  given  for 
you."  I  am  confident  that,  like  the  Greeks  who 
came  to  the  disciples  with  the  earnest  request  that 
they  might  be  able  to  see  the  Jesus  of  whom 
they  had  heard  so  much — we  also  would  see  Jesus. 
We  all  have  had  this  longing,  and  my  supreme 
purpose  is  to  make  the  ever-living  Christ  as  real 
to  you  as  He  was  to  the  Greeks.  This  is  possible, 
for  "Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday  and  to- 
day, yea  and  forever."  He  says  to  us:  "Abide 
in  Me  and  I  will  abide  in  you."  It  was  the  con- 
sciousness of  His  abiding  presence,  that  made  the 
phenomenal  lives  of  the  Apostles  as  they  went 
forth  like  immortals  whose  lives  were  hid  with 
Christ  in  God,  and  with  the  inspiration  and  vision 
of  Christian  imperialism — to  win  the  world  for 
Christ.  He  kept  His  promise  that  He  would 
abide  in  them.  He  made  their  heroism  and  suc- 
cess possible  by  His  divine  presence  that  inspired 
and  sustained  them.  He  did  not  abandon  them 
when  thrust  into  prison  for  preaching  in  His 
name,  but  He  visited  them  and  brought  them  forth 


164  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

with  the  heroic  challenge,  that  only  the  conscious- 
ness of  His  abiding  presence,  could  have  made 
possible:  "We  must  obey  God  rather  than  man." 
Make  this  Christ  very  real,  for  you  must  feel 
the  power  of  His  presence  if  you  would  preach 
His  Word.  We  must  see  Jesus  when  we  declare 
to  the  people:  "We  are  the  ambassadors  therefore 
on  behalf  of  Christ,  as  though  God  were  entreat- 
ing by  us:  we  beseech  you  on  behalf  of  Christ, 
be  ye  reconciled  to  God."  We  should  seriously 
ponder  these  profound  words  that  we  may  fathom 
their  meaning,  and  adjust  ourselves  to  this  rela- 
tion as  ministers  of  Christ.  Before  we  can  meas- 
ure up  to  this  intellectual  and  spiritual  standard 
of  thinking  and  being,  we  must  realize  Christ's 
presence,  as  did  the  Apostle  when  he  declared: 
"it  is  not  I  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  me." 

We  must  recognize  with  St.  Paul,  the  power 
of  the  personal  Christ;  and  "ever  looking  unto 
Jesus  the  author  and  perfecter  of  our  faith." 
Time  and  distance  are  no  barriers  for  the  human 
mind.  It  is  the  mind  that  is  the  man;  and  the 
mind  sees  more  than  eyes  can  see.  We  can  see 
with  the  mind  and  love  our  loved  ones  1,000  miles 
away,  as  clearly  and  as  dearly  as  we  can  when 
they  are  invisible  to  our  eyes  in  an  adjoining  room. 
We  can  think  back  several  thousand  years  and  see 
some  famous  character  of  history,  just  as  he  ap- 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     165 

peared  to  his  contemporaries.  We  need  not  see 
the  Christ  with  our  eyes. 

There  would  be  no  practical  advantage  in  see- 
ing Jesus  in  the  flesh;  and  the  great  apostle  did 
not  desire  any  longer  such  a  view;  whilst  the  dis- 
ciples were  never  so  mighty  and  triumphant  in 
faith  as  when  they  saw  Him  no  more  with  their 
eyes.  The  two  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus 
failed  to  recognize  Jesus,  even  though  they  saw 
His  face  and  heard  His  words.  Though  He  stood 
before  Mary  on  that  first  Easter  morn,  she  failed 
to  know  Him;  but  stood  disconsolate  at  the  tomb 
weeping,  though  He  said  to  her,  "Woman,  why 
weepest  thou?"  Not  until  He  called  her  by  name, 
did  she  recognize  the  risen  Lord. 

To  go  back  through  the  centuries  to  Palestine 
when  Jesus  sojourned  among  men,  may  seem  a 
long  distance  to  some,  and  the  way  at  times  may 
appear  indistinct  and  hazy,  but  we  need  not  trav- 
erse that  journey  and  period  on  foot;  but  with 
the  historic  document  of  the  gospels  in  hand  or  in 
mind, — and  in  a  moment  we  go  back  in  thought 
and  visualize  the  scenes  and  vitalize  the  leading 
characters.  Whilst  we  have  no  portraits  of  Jesus, 
we  have  the  moral  and  spiritual  portraits  in  the 
Gospel;  and  the  contemporary  portraits  of  rulers 
may  aid  us  in  our  efforts  after  realistic  and  vivid 
impressions. 


1 66  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

When  I  was  addressing  an  association  of  clergy- 
men on  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  min- 
ister said  to  me,  "I  see  that  you  get  much  more 
out  of  the  Lord's  Supper  than  we  do,  and  that  it 
means  much  more  to  you."  I  replied,  "True, 
because  we  believe  that  there  is  much  more  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  than  you  see.  We  take  the 
words  of  Christ  at  their  face  value,  as  they  stand 
in  the  divine  record;  and  as  the  Apostle  Paul 
taught — we  discern  the  Lord's  body  in  this  holy 
sacrament,  whilst  you  eliminate  the  Person  of 
Christ,  the  essence  that  we  receive; — hence  we 
receive  so  much  more  than  you  receive,  for  it  is 
an  entirely  different  Communion.  With  us  it  is 
the  real  communion  with  the  body  of  Christ:  "The 
cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  com- 
munion of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  which 
we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ?"  But  my  friend  recognized  in  it  only  a 
memorial  of  the  absent  Person  of  Christ.  There 
is  a  vast  difference,  hence,  between  our  concep- 
tions of  what  the  Lord's  Supper  is  and  what  it 
means  to  the  communicant — of  the  one  who  sees 
in  it  only  a  memorial  service. 

No  wonder  that  the  Eucharist  is  so  precious 
to  us;  for  it  means  so  much  to  us,  and  we  receive 
so  much.  We  may  receive  much  or  little  from 
this  Sacrament,  according  to  our  conception  of  Its 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     167 

content.  If  we  fail  to  discern  the  Lord's  body 
in  this  Holy  Communion  and  make  it  merely  a 
memorial  to  commemorate  the  Christ  who  once 
sojourned  on  earth,  then  we  may  receive  what  we 
expected  from  it,  and  nothing  more,  since  we  have 
failed  to  recognize  the  real  intrinsic  content.  It 
is  because  the  Person  of  Christ  is  indivisible  in 
His  deity  and  humanity,  that  His  real  presence 
includes  His  divine  and  human  natures.  Hence 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  enter  the  very  Holy  of 
Holies  of  the  Christian  religion,  for  here  we  meet 
the  Christ  as  nowhere  else.  The  elements  are  not 
mere  signs,  for  the  Christ  Himself  is  here,  and 
the  communion  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  is  the 
actual  participation  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  as  our  spiritual  food;  for  Christ  is  not  ab- 
sent though  unseen,  but  present  as  the  symbols 
are,  and  as  truly  communicates  Himself  to  us  ac- 
cording to  His  Will. 

We  must  distinguish  between  the  presence  of 
the  spiritual  or  glorified  body  of  Christ,  and  the 
mere  spiritual  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Jacobs  states  in  this  connection,  "When, 
however,  they  teach  that  the  presence  is  that  of 
the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  they  do  not  mean  to 
affirm  that  this  is  not  the  same  body  as  that  in 
which  He  suffered  and  died;  but  by  the  spiritual 
body  is  meant  that  Same   Body  in   its  glorified 


1 68  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

state,  sharing  not  only  in  the  new  properties  that 
belong  to  the  glorified  bodies  of  believers  after 
the  resurrection,  but  in  the  full  and  complete  ex- 
ercise of  those  infinite  properties  that  belong  to 
human  nature  in  both  body  and  soul  from  its 
union  with  a  divine  nature.  This  presence,  they 
teach,  is  dependent  entirely  upon  the  word  and 
Institution  of  Christ,  and  In  no  way  upon  the  faith 
of  the  communicant." 

"No  scriptural  authority  can  be  found  for  any 
sacramental  presence  except  In  the  sacramental 
action  itself.  Nor  are  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  received  by  the  mouth 
in  the  same  way;  the  former  being  received  natur- 
ally and  subjected  to  all  the  processes  undergone 
by  other  food;  but  the  latter  supernaturally  and  In 
a  way  not  occurring  except  in  this  Sacrament. 
There  Is  a  sacramental  which  is  not  a  spiritual, 
and  there  is  a  spiritual  which  is  not  a  sacramental, 
feeding  upon  Christ." 

Dr.  Valentine  In  his  valuable  work  on  "Chris- 
tian Theology"  says:  "Our  logically  consistent 
dogmatlclans  have  represented  the  supernatural 
presence  In  the  Eucharist  as  the  presence  of 
Christ  In  His  whole  theanthropic  Person,  In  Self- 
Presence  and  Self-communication  to  His  people. 
Luther  maintained  the  real  presence  of  Christ 
Himself."     He  quotes  Martensen:     "He  is  pres- 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper      169 

ent  wholly  and  entirely  in  His  Supper,  where  He 
in  an  especial  manner,  wills  to  be.  The  sacramen- 
tal communion  is  not  a  partaking  of  the  corporeal 
nature  of  Christ  apart  from  His  corporeity." 
"We  believe  that  the  whole  and  undivided  Christ 
gives  Himself  as  the  ailment  of  the  new  man  in 
the  Lord's  Supper."  "In  His  gifts,  He  gives 
Himself.  Take,  eat,  drink,  this  is  I;  in  this  I 
give  you  what  is  the  innermost  power  of  life  in 
Myself."  Sartorius  says:  "For  bread  and  wine 
truly  communicate  and  appropriate  to  us,  the 
Christ  who  was  sacrificed  for  us."  II,  347.  Dr. 
Valentine  quotes  Hollaz  in  his  explanation  of  the 
"difference  between  the  eating  by  faith  and  the 
sacramental  manducation"  :  "The  former  always 
contributes  to  our  salvation;  the  latter  sometimes 
may  be  done  to  our  condemnation;  the  former  ap- 
prehends the  whole  Christ  with  all  His  benefits; 
the  latter  apprehends  only  the  body  of  Christ  in 
and  under  the  bread."  Dr.  Valentine  adds :  "Does 
not  this  concession  show  the  urgency  for  the  oral 
or  corporeal  reception  to  be  at  least  a  misplaced 
emphasis  in  ideating  the  realities  of  the  Sacra- 
ment? The  strenuous  insistence  on  it  as  the  chief 
essential  reality  is  hardly  justified,  in  face  of  the 
admitted  fact  that  there  is  no  real  necessity  for  it 
per  se;  that  in  itself,  without  the  spiritual  recep- 
tion at  the  same  time,  it  is  ineflicacious  and  damag- 


170  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ing.  The  vital  need  in  the  sacramental  doctrine 
is  to  lay  the  controlling  stress  on  the  spiritual 
reception  of  Christ  through  faith.  No  grace  is 
received  through  either  word  or  sacrament  ex- 
cept through  this.  And  he  who  thus  receives 
Christ  realizes  in  Him  all  grace.  This  recogni- 
tion of  the  truth  that  Christ  in  His  whole  Divine- 
human  Person  is  present  in  the  Supper  where  He 
specially  wills  to  be,  thus  suggests  the  possibility 
that  there  may  have  been  no  real  necessity  for 
the  various  experiments  to  explain  and  assure  a 
literal  oral  reception." 

"These  methods  of  support  or  elucidation, 
which  have  been  (or  some  of  them)  increasingly 
abandoned  among  our  most  prominent  confes- 
sional theologians,  have  been  more  successful  in 
continuing  the  controversy  than  settling  it.  But 
when  the  Eucharistic  Presence  is  clearly  recog- 
nized as  that  of  the  glorified  Christ  Himself,  it 
is  at  once  divested  of  the  incongruities  and  troubles 
connected  with  efforts  to  think  it  under  the  mate- 
rialistic and  limiting  terms  of  flesh  and  blood, 
and  the  equally  limiting  acts  of  'oral'  eating  and 
drinking.  By  such  recognition  both  the  presence 
and  'reception'  are  at  once  lifted  above  the  natur- 
alistic modes,  and  transferred  to  the  generic  and 
acknowledged  reality  of  the  mystery  of  the  ex- 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     171 

alted  Redeemer's  omnipresence  and  bestowal  of 
the  gifts  of  His  grace."  II,  350. 

"Though  we  cannot  explain  this  Eucharistic 
Presence  of  the  undivided  Person  of  the  Divine 
and  human  nature  in  Christ,  it  is  conceivable  and 
not  impossible  for  the  Omnipresent  Saviour  to 
will  and  grant  to  the  faithful  communicant  a  'spe- 
cial' sacramental  presence.  Through  His  omni- 
presence wherever  He  wills,  the  bread  and  wine 
are  made  the  appointed  media  to  His  people  of  a 
special  real  communion  with  Himself,  not  as  an 
absent  but  present  Christ  and  Saviour.  He  fills 
these  elements  with  His  pervasive  presence,  with 
His  glorified  human  nature  as  well  as  with  the 
divine,  making  them  the  vehicles  for  His  self- 
importation  in  the  fulness  of  His  atoning  self- 
sacrifice.  This  truth  becomes  explanatory  and  de- 
fining for  the  mode  of  communication  and  re- 
ception in  the  Supper."  p.  351. 

"The  terms  body  and  blood  stand  for  the  hu- 
manity in  which  Christ  gave  Himself  to  death  for 
sin;  and  since  His  exaltation.  He  is  present  in 
the  mode  of  existence  which  His  Deity  gives  or 
can  give  to  His  whole  Person:  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  always." 

"It  is  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  He 
possesses  them   since   His   glorification,   and  not 


172  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

of  them  in  naturalistic  sense  or  condition,  that  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  makes  affirmation.  It  distinct- 
ly repudiates  everything  like  a  presence  or  recep- 
tion after  a  gross,  natural  or  physical  manner. 

"Though  it  has  sometimes  been  called  'cor- 
poreal,' this  word  is  used,  not  at  all  with  respect 
to  the  mode  of  it,  but  only  adjectively  to  include 
the  human  or  bodily  reality  in  the  Presence.  The 
mode  is  marked  as  'sacramental,'  'supernatural,' 
'incomprehensible,'  and  'spiritual.'  Hence  impa- 
nation,  consubstantiation  and  subpanation  are  all 
repudiated  as  descriptive  of  the  manner  of  it. 
The  'oral  reception'  or  'oral  manducation'  has 
not  been  made  by  our  Church  as  a  whole,  a  nec- 
essary part  of  its  sacramental  doctrine,  appearing 
only  in  the  Form  of  Concord." 

The  Presence  in  the  Supper  is  of  the  glorified 
and  exalted  Christ  Himself,  in  the  indivisible  unity 
of  His  Divine  human  Person,  and  "the  glorified 
Christ  can  be  received  only  by  spiritual  compre- 
hension and  appropriation.  Oral  manducation  is 
inapplicable  to  acceptance  of  His  Divine  nature, 
and  His  human  nature  does  not  exist  apart,  to  be 
separately  given  or  received."     p.  357. 

He  holds  that  according  to  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine the  Lord's  Supper  is  "in  its  essential  con- 
tent and  significance,  a  divinely-instituted  Sacra- 
ment for  perpetual  use  in  His  Church,  which  while 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     173 

constituting  a  memorial  of  His  redemptive  suf- 
fering, is  made  also  through  a  real,  special  defini- 
tive Presence,  under  His  generic  omnipresence, — 
a  means  by  which  He  gives  Himself  to  believers 
as  the  ever-living  Saviour,  in  the  fulness  of  His 
provided  grace  and  saving  power.  This  believing 
sacramental  reception  becomes  a  real  communion, 
fellowship,  not  only  with  Christ,  but  of  believers 
with  one  another,  as  forming  the  Church,  the 
spiritual  body  of  Christ."  Dr.  Valentine,  ii,  359. 
Dr.  Krauth  in  his  monumental  work  on  "The 
Conservative  Reformation,"  furnishes  abundant 
testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  Confessions  and 
great  Lutheran  theologians  without  a  dissenting 
voice  repudiate  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  Consub- 
stantiation,  the  name  and  the  thing,  in  whole  and 
in  every  one  of  its  parts.  In  the  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord, 1536,  prepared  and  signed  by  Luther  and 
the  other  great  leaders  in  the  Church,  it  is  dis- 
tinctly stated:  "We  deny  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  as  we  do  also  deny  the  doctrine  of  a 
Capernaitish  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ,  which 
after  so  many  protestations  on  our  part,  is  mali- 
ciously imputed  to  us;  the  manducation  is  not  a 
thing  of  the  senses  or  of  reason,  but  supernatural, 
mysterious  and  incomprehensible.  The  Presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  is  not  of  a  physical  na- 
ture nor  earthly  nor  Capernaitish,  and  yet  it  is 


174  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

most  true."  Thus  Bishop  Waterland  states  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  held  by  the  Lutheran  Church 
respecting  the  Lord's  Supper:  "What  they  admit 
and  abide  by,  it  is  a  sacramental  union,  not  a  cor- 
poreal presence." 

In  reference  to  the  charge  of  ubiquity,  the  Form 
of  Concord  is  very  explicit:  "Our  Church  rejects 
and  condemns  the  error  that  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  is  locally  expanded  in  all  places  of  heaven 
and  earth,  or  has  become  an  infinite  essence."  "If 
we  speak  of  geometric  locality  and  space,  the  hu- 
manity of  Christ  is  not  everywhere."  "In  its 
proper  sense  it  can  be  said  with  truth,  Christ  is  on 
earth  or  in  His  Supper  only  according  to  the  Di- 
vine nature,  to  wit:  in  the  sense  that  the  humanity 
of  Christ  by  its  own  nature  cannot  be  expected  in 
one  place,  but  has  the  majesty  (of  copresence)  only 
from  divinity."  "When  the  word  corporeal  is 
used  of  the  mode  of  presence,  and  is  equivalent  to 
local,  we  affirm  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  in  the 
heaven  and  not  on  earth." 

Dr.  Krauth  further  states:  that  "Of  a  local 
presence  of  the  body  of  Christ,  in,  with  or  under 
the  bread,  there  never  was  any  controversy  be- 
tween Lutherans  and  Calvinists;  that  local  pres- 
ence we  expressly  reject  and  condemn  in  all  our 
writings.     But  a  local  absence  does  not  prevent  a 


Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper     175 

sacramental  presence,  which  is  dependent  on  the 
communication  of  the  divine  majesty." 

Gerhard,  that  profound  thinlcer  and  theologian 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  is  very  clear  and  unequiv- 
ocal in  his  statements  respecting  our  belief,  and  in 
repudiation  of  the  errors  attributed  to  us  respect- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper.  Surely  our  Confessors  and 
theologians  must  have  known  what  they  believed 
and  taught;  and  they  have  a  right  to  explain  the 
content  of  their  words  and  language,  as  well  as  to 
deny  and  refute  the  erroneous  views  that  have  been 
attributed  to  them  whether  through  malice-afore- 
thought or  misunderstanding  of  their  actual  belief. 
Necessity  has  compelled  this  to  be  done  so  often 
and  thoroughly  that  it  might  reasonably  seem  that 
there  would  be  no  further  excuse  for  any  further 
misunderstanding  or  misrepresentation  as  to  our 
real  views. 


IVi 

CONSENSUS    OF   OPINION   AMONG  THEOLOGIANS 

DR.  HODGE,  in  his  lectures,  says  of  the 
Lord's  Supper:  "We  now  enter  the  inner- 
most Most  Holy  Place  of  the  Christian's  Temple. 
We  approach  the  sacred  altar  on  which  lies  quiver- 
ing before  our  eyes  the  bleeding  heart  of  Christ. 
We  come  to  the  most  private  and  personal  meet- 
ing place  between  our  Lord  and  His  beloved. 
It  is  the  central  ordinance  in  the  whole  circle  of 
church  life,  around  which  all  the  other  ministries 
of  the  church  revolve."     390. 

"The  divinely-prepared  historic  root  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  the  Passover.  The  paschal 
lamb  was  a  type  of  Christ." 

"Christ  as  an  objective  fact  is  as  really  present 
and  active  in  the  sacrament  as  the  bread  and  wine, 
or  the  minister  or  our  fellow-communicants  by  our 
side.  We  know  nothing  as  to  the  ultimate  union 
of  our  souls  and  bodies,  yet  we  no  less  are  certain 
of  the  fact.  So  we  need  not  speculate  how  it  is 
that  Christ,  the  whole  God-man,  body,  soul  and 
divinity,  is  present  in  the  Sacrament;  but  we  are 

176 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians      177 

absolutely  certain  of  the  fact  that  He  has  promised 
it."  "What  is  present  in  the  Sacrament  is  not  lit- 
eral flesh  and  blood  to  be  eaten  and  drunk,  but  the 
whole  divine-human  person  of  our  Lord,  etc." 

"We  maintain  our  unshaken  faith,  not  in  ab- 
stract material  flesh  and  blood,  but  in  the  actual 
objective,  efi^ective  presence  with  the  believing 
communicant  of  the  whole  divine-human  Person 
of  Christ.  We  are  unable  and  we  do  not  care,  to 
explain  the  nature  of  the  fact  scientifically — Christ 
is  personally  and  literally  and  immediately  pres- 
ent." 

These  positive  statements  for  the  real  Presence 
are  encouraging,  for  he  realized  as  others  did  the 
difficulty  to  state  in  a  verbal  formula  the  faith  of 
the  Church  in  the  content  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist.  He  found  it  necessary  to  qualify  by 
explanatory  words  in  order  that  he  might  express 
himself  in  accordance  with  the  consciousness  of 
his  own  convictions;  and  others  have  struggled 
no  less  to  express  adequately,  if  possible,  the 
truth  respecting  the  profound  mystery  of  Christ's 
sacramental  presence  in  the  Eucharist;  but  not 
to  explain  it  away. 

Dr.  Hodge  must  have  realized  his  difficulty  in 
reconciling  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ 
with  the  Calvinistic  view  of  His  presence  in  the 
Eucharist,  for  in  his  efforts  to  explain  and  illus- 


178  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

trate  the  absolute  and  perpetual  union  of  the  di- 
vine and  human  natures  in  Christ,  the  logical  se- 
quence would  make  the  Lutheran  doctrine  a  neces- 
sity. He  declares  that  "divinity  and  humanity  act 
together  in  the  thought,  heart  and  act  of  Christ 
who  is  absolutely  one — at  the  same  time  unchanged 
God  and  pure,  unchanged  and  unmixed  man,  and 
whose  person  in  its  wholesomeness  and  fullness  is 
available  throughout  all  space  and  time  to  those 
who  trust  Him."  If  this  be  true,  why  can  He  not 
be  present  in  the  Holy  Sacrament  as  we  teach,  for 
there  is  but  one  Christ,  undivided  and  inseparable, 
and  His  humanity  must  appear  with  His  divinity, 
since  they  are  united  in  the  Person  of  Christ? 

We  acknowledge  the  mystery  as  Dr.  Hodge 
does,  but  we  are  no  more  called  upon  to  explain 
the  insoluble  than  he  is ;  but  we  believe  the  fact  just 
as  he  believes  the  profound  mystery  of  Christ's 
Person  although  it  transcends  all  human  compre- 
hension, as  he  freely  admits. 

The  Lutheran  position  is  consistent  and  safe  in- 
asmuch as  we  stand  by  the  divine  record.  We 
accept  it  as  a  historic  fact  of  the  Scriptures.  So 
far  as  the  interpretation  of  the  content  of  the  lan- 
guage is  concerned,  we  encounter  no  greater  diffi- 
culties on  the  whole  than  do  those  who  differ  from 
us,  for  the  supreme  fact  of  the  continued-undivided 
oneness  of  Christ's  Person  is  involved,  and  this 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     179 

must  be  accounted  for  by  those  who  would  have 
the  human  nature  absent,  and  locahzed  in  heaven. 
Hence  the  process  is  not  so  simple  as  it  would  ap- 
pear to  some  who  recognize  nothing  more  than  a 
symbolical  significance  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  They 
assume  that  they  escape  all  difficulty  of  interpreta- 
tion by  eliminating  the  real  Christ  of  history  from 
the  Eucharist,  under  the  plea  that  the  words  are 
merely  figurative,  and  that  Christ  did  not  or  could 
not  have  meant  what  the  language  would  naturally 
convey.  But  what  basis  of  evidential  certainty 
have  they  for  such  a  conclusion?  The  reasons 
assigned  are  generally  the  result  of  what  they  con- 
ceive insuperable  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accept- 
ing a  more  literal  interpretation.  But  they  are  not 
through  with  all  the  difficulties  to  be  explained  by 
such  a  summary  process.  They  may  escape  Scylla, 
but  only  to  find  themselves  later  contending  in 
Charybdis;  for  how  can  they  reconcile  such  a  di- 
vided Christ  with  the  universal  view  of  the  Church 
respecting  His  Person? 

Dr.  Henry  J.  VanDyke,  Sr.,  in  his  lectures  on 
the  Church,  her  Ministry  and  Sacraments,  deliv- 
ered at  Princeton  Theological  Seminary  in  1890, 
refers  to  Calvin  who  at  times  wrote  like  a  Luther- 
an on  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  he 
says  that  Zwinglianism  is  essentially  rationalistic 
in  the  evil  sense  of  the  words.    Its  chief  effort  is 


l8o  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

to  explain  away  or  reduce  to  a  minimum  the  mys- 
tery of  the  Lord's  Supper.  We  have  heard  Pres- 
byterian ministers  in  administering  it,  eulogizing 
the  absolute  simplicity  not  only  of  its  symbols,  but 
of  its  whole  design  and  efficacy,  comparing  it  to  the 
monument  which  recalls  the  memory  of  some  great 
man,  as  though  that  explained  its  whole  meaning 
and  effect."  "We  grow  weary  in  our  reading  on  the 
subject  of  the  reiterated  assertion  that  this  or  that 
view  is  incomprehensible,  unreasonable  or  con- 
trary to  common  sense;  and  the  more  so  because 
the  same  writers  who  use  such  arguments  in  re- 
gard to  the  Lord's  Supper  repudiate  and  denounce 
them  when  they  are  urged  by  others  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Sovereignty  of  God, 
the  Incarnation,  the  Atonement,  the  resurrection 
and  exaltation  of  Christ,  the  vital  union  of  believ- 
ers with  His  glorified  Person  and  the  wonder- 
working power  of  His  Holy  Spirit — all  of  which 
revealed  mysteries  pervade  and  are  embodied  in 
the  transcendent  mystery  of  the  Holy  Commun- 
ion." 

"The  Sacrament  is  founded  upon  and  leads  up  to 
His  one  indivisible  Person,  which  is  the  reservoir 
of  all  divine  fulness  for  our  salvation.  He  is  not 
and  cannot  be  divided.  His  human  nature  never 
had  and  never  can  have,  any  existence  separate 
from  His  Deity.    He  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     i8i 

Ghost,  and  was  the  Son  of  God  from  the  moment 
of  His  conception.  His  human  soul  and  His  hu- 
man body  were  separated  for  three  days  when 
the  one  descended  to  Hades  and  the  other  lay  in 
the  tomb;  but  neither  was  parted  for  a  moment 
from  His  Divine  nature.  Moreover  since  the  in- 
carnation, Christ's  Divine  nature  does  not  exert 
any  saving  power  nor  bestow  any  gracious  gift 
upon  men,  except  in  and  through  His  human  na- 
ture. The  Son  of  God  was  from  the  beginning, 
the  living  Word  of  the  Father,  the  life  and  light 
of  men ;  and  now  since  the  Word  became  Flesh  it  is 
the  Son  of  Man  who  has  power  on  earth  to  for- 
give sins,  and  is  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour. 
By  its  union  with  the  Divine  nature,  the  humanity 
of  Christ  is  infinitely  exalted.  It  follows  from  this 
that  wherever  Christ  is,  there  is  His  human  as  well 
as  His  Divine  nature.  His  human  nature  is  vir- 
tually omnipresent,  because  it  is  inseparable  and 
forever  united  to  the  Divine."     179. 

"His  whole  human  nature,  body  and  soul,  being 
forever  united  to  His  Divine  nature,  is  virtually 
omnipresent;  that  is  to  say — its  influence  can  be 
exerted  and  manifested  anywhere  according  to  His 
Divine  Will.  This  real  presence  of  Christ  is  spe- 
cially promised  and  covenanted  to  us  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  consecrated  bread  and  wine  are  not 
merely  the  symbols  of  His  body  and  blood,  but  the 


1 82  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Divine  seals  of  the  covenant  whereby  Christ  and 
all  His  benefits  are  not  only  represented  but  ap- 
plied to  us;  and  therefore  their  use  is  the  kolvuvIq., 
the  actual  participation  of  Christ's  body  and  blood 
by  every  believing  communicant.  .  .  .  The  grace 
signified  is  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelling 
bodily  in  Christ." 

"It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  cannot  be  separated  from 
Christ  Himself,  and  that  no  saving  benefit  can  be 
received  from  Him  unless  we  are  vitally  united  to 
His  person.  His  body  and  blood  represent  His 
whole  person  and  offices.  His  merits,  the  sacri- 
ficial merits  of  His  death  and  all  His  benefits, 
both  of  grace  and  glory." 

"We  reject  also  the  theory  of  a  local  presence 
in,  with  or  under  the  sacred  symbols.  Presence  as 
applied  in  Scripture  and  in  our  theology  to  the  an- 
thropic  person  of  Christ,  has  nothing  to  do  with 
locality  or  limitation  of  any  kind."  VanDyke,  p. 
184. 

The  controversialists  who  strive  to  array  Me- 
lanchthon  on  the  side  of  Calvin  repecting  his  views 
on  the  Sacrament,  will  find  a  strong  corrective  in 
the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Richards  in  the  statement: 
"Melanchthon  never  departed  from  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  nor 
from  the  essentials  of  the  Lutheran  teaching  on 


Consensus  of  Opinion  A^nong  Theologians     183 

the  subject,  though  later  in  life  he  laid  more  em- 
phasis on  the  ethical  features  of  the  sacraments. 

"For  proof  of  these  affirmations  we  quote  from 
Corpus  Philippicum,  the  preface  to  which  Me- 
lanchthon  wrote  only  two  months  before  his  death. 
"In  this  communion  Christ  is  truly  and  substan- 
tially present,  and  Is  truly  administered  to  those 
who  take  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  "Christ 
is  truly  present,  and  by  means  of  this  service  He 
gives  His  body  and  blood  to  him  who  eats  and 
drinks.  So  say  also  the  ancient  writers:  What 
is  the  Lord's  Supper?  It  is  the  communication  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
it  was  instituted  In  the  words  of  the  Gospel,  In  the 
taking  of  which  the  Son  of  God  is  truly  and  sub- 
stantially present." 

"Melanchthon  does  not  echo  Luther's  words 
nor  does  he  speak  of  a  repletlve  presence  or  of 
oral  manducation,  but  without  hesitation  and  with- 
out equivocation  he  affirms  the  substantial  pres- 
ence of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist;  and  the  communi- 
cation of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  the  com- 
municant; and  in  the  emphasis  which  he  places 
upon  the  sacrament  as  a  sign,  a  seal,  a  testimony, 
an  application  of  the  blessing  and  benefits  of 
Christ,  he  surpasses  Luther,  as  might  be  expected 
of  one  who  declared  that  the  aim  of  all  this  theo- 
logizing was  to  make  men  better." 


184  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

"Against  this  teaching  by  Melanchthon,  Luther 
never  raised  a  word  of  oFjection,  not  even  in  the 
Small  Confession  of  1544  in  which  he  so  violently 
assailed  all  those  who  had  differed  from  him  in 
his  teachings  on  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  he  actually 
endorsed  Melanchthon's  teaching  on  this  and  on 
all  other  subjects,  when  in  1545  he  extolled  Me- 
lanchton's  Loci  Communes  above  all  other  books 
of  divinity. 

"Hence  we  may  say  that  Luther  and  Melanch- 
thon were  one  in  their  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per— not  one  in  phraseology,  but  one  in  the  essen- 
tial things,  namely,  in  the  real  presence  of  Christ; 
In  the  Eucharist;  in  the  communication  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  to  the  communicant;  and  In 
the  necessity  of  faith  for  the  profitable  use  of  the 
Sacrament."   p.   391. 

"But  by  and  by  the  ultra  Lutherans  emphasized 
the  accidents  rather  than  the  essentials  of  Luther's 
teaching,  and  more  and  more  laid  stress  on  oral 
manducation,  on  the  sacramental  union,  on  the  in, 
cum,  sub  pane  et  vino,  that  is,  on  the  dogmatic  and 
extra-biblical  content,  and  on  the  conception  that 
there  can  be  no  substantial  reception  of  Christ 
apart  from  the  sacraments,  since  the  heavenly  gift 
Is  Imparted  only  in,  with  and  under  the  sacra- 
ments." 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     185 

"The  followers  of  Melanchthon  insisted  more 
and  more  on  the  union  of  the  living  Christ,  the 
God-man  with  the  believer.  Such  presence  of 
Christ  was  not  less  real  than  that  contended  for  by 
the  rigid  adherents  of  Luther.  It  was  less  dog- 
matic but  more  religious  and  ethical.  The  two 
views  and  the  two  tendencies  are  absolutely  irrec- 
oncilable with  each  other.  In  the  extreme  form 
in  which  they  appeared  in  the  7th  decade  of  the 
1 6th  century,  they  do  not  represent  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  the  same  had 
been  set  forth  in  the  official  witnesses  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church."  393. 

Calvin  in  his  Institutes,  Vol.  II,  p.  534,  quotes 
St.  Paul:  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ? 
The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ?"  "Nor  is  there  any  cause 
to  object,  that  It  is  a  figurative  expression,  by 
which  the  signified  is  given  to  the  sign.  Yet  this 
being  admitted,  we  may  justly  infer  the  substance; 
for  unless  any  one  would  call  God  a  deceiver,  he 
can  never  presume  to  affirm  that  He  sets  before  us 
an  empty  sign.  Therefore  if  by  the  breaking  of 
the  bread,  the  Lord  truly  represents  the  participa- 
tion of  His  body,  it  ought  not  to  be  doubted  that 
he  truly  presents   and  communicates   it.      I   say 


1 86  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

therefore,  that  in  the  mystery  of  the  Supper,  under 
the  symbols  of  bread  and  wine,  Christ  is  truly  ex- 
hibited to  us,  even  His  body  and  blood." 

"Christ  exerts  His  power  wherever  He  pleases 
in  heaven  and  earth — just  as  if  He  were  corpo- 
really present;  in  short,  feeds  them  with  His  own 
body,  of  which  He  gives  them  a  participation  by 
the  influence  of  His  spirit.  This  is  the  way  in 
which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  exhibited 
to  us  in  the  sacrament."  (542).  That  is,  they 
are  not  there  as  Christ  said  they  were. 

VanDyke  says  :  "It  is  trifling  to  set  aside  these 
Scriptural  statements  as  mere  figures  of  speech. 
The  figures  fall  short  of  the  profound  reality  which 
they  illustrate.  It  is  no  less  trifling  to  resolve  the 
mystery  of  this  personal  union  with  Christ  into  the 
indwelling  of  His  spirit  in  the  souls  of  believers." 
180.  He  quotes  from  Bannerman  on  the  Church 
of  Christ — "It  seems  impossible,  with  any  show  of 
reason,  to  assert  that  the  discernment  spoken  of  in 
I  Cor.  xi :  27-29  is  the  mere  power  of  interpret- 
ing the  signs  as  representatives  of  Christ's  death, 
or  that  the  guilt  incurred  is  nothing  more  than  the 
danger  of  abusing  certain  outward  symbols.  These 
expressions  evidently  point  to  a  spiritual  and  awful 
sin,  not  of  misusing  and  profaning  outward  sym- 
bols, but  of  misusing  and  profaning  Christ  actual- 
ly present  in  them."     II,  138. 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     187 

Even  Calvin  at  times  expresses  himself  in  the 
language  of  a  Lutheran  as  when  he  remarks  on  I 
Cor.  11:24-26:  "For  He  (Christ)  does  not  sim- 
ply present  to  us  the  benefits  of  His  death  and 
resurrection ;  but  the  very  body  in  which  He  suf- 
fered and  rose  again." 

We  have  a  right  to  be  judged  in  the  light  of  the 
statements  of  our  own  theologians  who  have 
spoken  ex-cathedra  for  us;  and  we  have  a  right  to 
protest  against  writers,  who  instead  of  consulting 
the  recognized  standards  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
persist  in  misrepresenting  us  by  deliberately  quot- 
ing what  our  enemies  have  said  about  us.  A  con- 
scientious scholar  always  examines  the  original 
sources  as  far  as  possible,  in  order  to  get  authori- 
tative testimony.  We  want  to  know  the  absolute 
truth  respecting  a  man's  belief;  and  hence  we  go  to 
the  man  himself.  If  I  want  to  know  what  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantlatlon  is,  as  held  by  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  then  I  must  go  to  the  recognized  au- 
thority, and  hence  I  quoted  from  their  able  writer 
in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia.  We  do  not  want  a 
caricature  by  perverting  the  facts,  nor  by  substi- 
tuting the  views  of  an  unsympathetic  critic.  It  is 
because  this  principle  of  justice  and  fairness  has 
been  so  commonly  and  persistently  abused  that  the 
Lutheran  Church  has  been  greatly  misunderstood 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     I 


1 88  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

regret  to  find  that  able  and  broadmlnded  scholar, 
Dr.  Briggs,  repeating  the  old  charge  that  Consub- 
stantiation  Is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper, — an  error  that  our  Church  has  always  re^- 
pudiated  from  the  beginning.  With  the  passing  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  who  cannot  atone  for  the  wrong  by 
acknowledging  and  correcting  it,  there  seems  little 
hope  of  our  escape  from  far  less  fairmlnded  and 
able  men,  who  prefer  to  misrepresent  rather  than 
to  take  us  at  our  word  as  so  often  publicly  de- 
clared. 

All  may  know  the  Lutheran  position  and  under- 
stand us  if  they  will.  Dr.  Gerhard  spoke  with  the 
authority  of  the  Church  when  he  wrote  the  clear 
forcible  words:  "To  meet  the  calumnies  of  oppo- 
nents, we  would  remark  that  we  neither  believe  In 
Impanatlon  nor  Consubstantlatlon,  nor  In  any 
physical  or  local  presence  whatsoever.  Nor  do 
we  believe  In  that  consubstantiatlve  presence  which 
some  define  to  be  inclusive  of  one  substance  in  an- 
other. Far  from  us  be  that  figment.  The  hea- 
venly thing  and  the  earthly  thing.  In  the  Holy 
Supper,  In  the  physical  and  natural  sense,  are  not 
present  with  one  another."  It  was  a  disappoint- 
ment when  reading  the  article  on  the  Eucharist  In 
the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  to  find  that  the  writer 
had  fallen  into  the  same  pit  of  careless  error  with 
his  many  Protestant  brethren.     On  page  580  he 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     189 

twice  repeats  the  obnoxious  word,  and  quotes  with 
approval  the  attitude  of  Calvin  in  this  respect,  for 
he  states:  "The  Calvinists  therefore,  are  per- 
fectly right  when  they  reject  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  Consubstantiation  as  a  fiction,  with  no  founda- 
tion in  the  Scripture."  He  might  with  greater 
truth  and  fairness  have  stated  that  the  Lutherans 
therefore  are  perfectly  right  when  they  reject  the 
doctrine  of  Consubstantiation,  and  the  Catholic 
dogma  of  Transubstantiation,  as  a  fiction,  with  no 
foundation  in  Scripture,  for  the  Lutheran  Church 
has  always  repudiated  these  errors  as  unscrip- 
tural. 

We  agree  with  the  writer  of  that  excellent  ar- 
ticle on  the  Eucharist  in  the  Catholic  Encyclo- 
pedia, when  he  says,  "The  Church's  Magna 
Charta  are  the  words  of  the  Institution,  'This  is 
my  body — this  is  my  blood,'  "  although  we  might 
qualify  the  explanatory  clause  connected  with  it, 
viz.,  "whose  literal  meaning  she  has  uninterrupt- 
edly adhered  to  from  the  earliest  times."  How- 
ever, what  the  writer  says  is  worthy  of  serious 
consideration:  "It  is  but  natural  and  justifiable  to 
expect  that,  when  four  different  narrators  in  dif- 
ferent countries  and  at  different  times  relate  the 
words  of  Institution  to  different  circles  of  readers, 
the  occurrence  of  an  unusual  figure  of  speech,  as 
for  instance,  that  bread  is  a  sign  of  Christ's  Body, 


190  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

would  somewhere  or  other,  betray  Itself  either  in 
the  difference  of  word-setting,  or  In  the  unequivocal 
expression  of  the  meaning  really  intended,  or  at 
least  In  the  addition  of  some  such  remark  as:  'He 
spoke,  however,  of  the  sign  of  His  Body.'  But 
nowhere  do  we  discover  the  slightest  ground  for 
a  figurative  Interpretation."  574,  V.  "Neither 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  nor  in  common  par- 
lance Is  bread  an  apt  or  possible  symbol  of  the  hu- 
man body.  Were  one  to  say  of  a  piece  of  bread: 
'This  is  Napoleon,'  he  would  not  be  using  a  fig- 
ure, but  uttering  nonsense.  Belief  In  the  Real 
Presence  necessarily  presupposes  belief  in  the  true 
divinity  of  Christ." 

"There  Is  but  one  means  of  rendering  a  symbol, 
improperly  so  called,  clear  and  intelligible,  namely, 
by  conventionally  settling  beforehand  what  It  Is  to 
signify."  He  Is  not  so  secure  of  his  position  when 
he  states  that  "Christ  intended  to  institute  the 
Eucharist  as  a  most  holy  sacrament,  to  be  solemnly 
celebrated  In  the  Church  to  the  end  of  time.  But 
the  content  and  the  constituent  parts  of  a  sacra- 
ment had  to  be  stated  with  such  clearness  of  termi- 
nology as  to  exclude  categorically  every  error  In 
liturgy  and  worship." 

A  fair  and  generous  interpretation  of  the  diver- 
gent opinions  that  have  prevailed  among  the  most 
conscientious  scholars  in  the  various  branches  of 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     191 

the  Christian  Church,  would  hardly  warrant  such 
a  positive  statement  as  being  delivered  with  ex- 
cathedra  authority.  With  the  spirit  of  all  judicial 
fairness,  we  must  admit  that  we  cannot  be  so  abso- 
lutely certain,  and  that  the  language  is  so  cate- 
gorically certain  that  there  cannot  be  an  honest  dif- 
ference of  opinion;  for  the  words  do  admit  of 
more  than  one  interpretation,  and  that  accounts 
largely  for  the  unfortunate  divisions  in  bitter  con- 
troversy, for  here  we  all  ought  to  be  united  in  love 
to  Christ  as  well  as  in  love  to  one  another.  We 
cannot  but  deplore  the  gross  error  into  which 
Zwingli  fell  when  he  utterly  repudiated  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Real  Presence  and  made  the  sacrament 
of  no  effect,  but  merely  a  memorial  of  Christ's 
death,  and  without  the  living  Christ  in  that  sup- 
per. 

The  writer  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia  accepts 
the  words  of  the  Institution  and  John  6  as  well,  in 
all  their  literalism;  and  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  was  the  logical  sequence  for  the  Church 
in  time.  Under  "The  Totality  of  the  Real  Pres- 
ence" he  refers  to  the  Council  of  Trent  which  de- 
fined the  Real  Presence  "to  be  such  as  to  include 
with  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  His  soul  and  divin- 
ity as  well.  Hence  Christ  is  present  in  the  sacra- 
ment with  His  Flesh  and  Blood,  Body  and  Soul, 
Humanity  and  Divinity."     578. 


192  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

He  holds  that  when  Christ  said  of  the  bread: 
"This  is  my  body,"  "the  bread  became  through  the 
utterance  of  those  words,  the  body  of  Christ;  con- 
sequently on  the  completion  of  the  sentence,  the 
substance  of  the  bread  was  no  longer  present,  but 
the  body  of  Christ  under  the  outward  appearance 
of  bread.  Hence  the  bread  must  have  become  the 
Body  of  Christ,  i.e.,  the  former  must  have  been 
converted  into  the  latter.". 

The  "Totality  of  Presence  means  that  Christ 
in  His  entirety  is  present  in  the  whole  of  the  Host 
and  each  smallest  part  thereof,  as  the  spiritual 
soul  is  present  in  the  human  body.  The  difficulty 
reaches  its  climax  when  we  consider  that  there  is 
no  question  here  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but  of 
His  body  which  with  its  head,  trunk  and  members 
has  assumed  a  mode  of  existence  spiritual  and  in- 
dependent of  space;  a  mode  of  existence  indeed, 
concerning  which  neither  experience  nor  any  sys- 
tem of  philosophy  can  have  the  least  inkling.  That 
the  idea  of  conversion  of  corporeal  matter  into 
spirit  can  be  entertained,  is  clear  from  the  ma- 
terial substance  of  the  Eucharist  Body  itself.  The 
body  of  the  Christ  is  not  invisible  or  impalpable 
to  us  because  it  occupies  the  fourth  dimension,  but 
it  transcends  and  is  wholly  independent  of  space. 
Such  a  mode  of  existence,  it  is  clear,  does  not  come 
within  the  scope  of  physics  and  mechanics,  but  be- 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     193 

longs  to  a  higher  order,  even  as  does  the  Resur- 
rection from  the  sealed  tomb,  the  passing  in  and 
out  through  closed  doors,  the  Transfiguration  of 
the  future  glorified  risen  Body." 

He  holds  that  "the  Body  given  to  the  Apostles 
was  the  selfsame  Body  that  was  crucified  on  Good 
Friday,  and  the  Chalice  drunk  by  them,  the  self- 
same Blood  that  was  shed  on  the  Cross  for  our 
sins."  "The  total  conversion  of  the  substance  of 
bread  is  expressed  clearly  in  the  words  of  Institu- 
tion, 'This  is  my  body.'  Transubstantiation  means 
that  'the  entire  substance  of  the  bread  and  the  en- 
tire substance  of  the  wine  are  converted  respec- 
tively into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  such 
a  way  that  only  the  appearances  of  bread  and 
wine  remain." 

Concerning  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
we  agree  with  Gore:  "Apart  from  the  degree  of 
authority  which  it  has  obtained  in  the  West  and  to 
a  certain  extent  in  the  East,  there  is  truly  on  the 
grounds  of  antiquity  or  Scripture  or  reason,  noth- 
ing to  be  said  for  It.  And  we  cannot  admit  the 
weight  of  an  authority  w^hich  fails  in  these  sup- 
ports."    123. 

This  materialistic  theory  of  the  Eucharist  grew 
In  the  Church  until  In  the  nth  century  It  became 
established  as  the  fundamental  doctrine  In  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Lord's  Supper.     Beranger  who  had 


194  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ventured  to  dissent  from  the  teaching  of  the  hier- 
archy was  compelled  to  recant  what  he  had  pro- 
claimed, and  to  declare  "that  the  bread  and  wine 
which  are  placed  upon  the  altar,  are  after  conse- 
cration not  only  a  sacrament  but  the  true  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  sensibly  (sen- 
sualiter),  not  only  in  sacrament  but  in  reality,  are 
handled  by  the  hands  of  priests  and  broke  and 
bruised  by  the  teeth  of  the  faithful." 

Plummer  quotes  Evans  where  he  states  that 
"the  bread  and  wine  after  their  benediction  or  con- 
secration, are  not  indeed  changed  in  their  nature 
but  become  in  their  use  and  in  their  effects,  the  very 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  How  the  sacramental 
bread  becomes  in  its  use  and  effects  the  body  of 
Christ,  is  a  thing  that  passes  all  understanding: 
the  manner  is  a  mystery."  Plummer  adds:  "The 
meaning  is  in  harmony  with  the  context.  In  this 
connection  the  symbol  is  never  a  mere  symbol,  but 
a  means  of  real  union;  and  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
the  symbol  is  very  significant.  It  is  a  means  of 
union  with  Christ  in  that  character  which  is  indi- 
cated by  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood:  that  is, 
union  with  the  crucified  Redeemer.  Christ's  death 
was  a  sacrifice;  and  to  proclaim  His  death  and  ap- 
propriate His  body  and  blood  offered  to  that  sacri- 
fice, is  to  realize  the  sacrifice  and  to  appropriate  Its' 
effects.  The  sacrificial  idea  appears  in  Heb.  13  :io. 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     195 

But  the  altar  on  which  Christ  offered  His  sacrifice 
was  the  cross;  and  the  altar  on  which  we  offer  is 
Christ  Himself."  With  regard  to  the  Eucharistic 
controversy  we  wish,  with  Hooker,  that  "men 
would  more  give  themselves  to  meditate  with 
silence  what  we  have  by  the  sacrament,  and  less 
to  dispute  of  the  manner  how." 

Of  the  much  discussed  words ToyToeTto-j/Too-oj/xd/zoi; 
he  says:  "All  carnal  ideas  are  excluded  by  the 
fact  that  the  Institution  took  place  before  the  Pas- 
sion. Our  Lord's  human  body  was  present,  and 
His  blood  was  not  yet  shed.  What  is  certain  is 
that  those  who  rightly  receive  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  in  the  Eucharist,  receive  spiritually 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  How  this  takes 
place  is  beyond  our  comprehension." 

On  I  Cor.  10:16  Plummer  says:  "There  is 
only  one  body,  the  Body  of  Christ,  the  Body  of 
His  Church  of  which  each  Christian  is  a  member. 
This  is  the  meaning  of  'This  is  My  Body.'  " 

Jeremy  Taylor,  on  the  Real  Presence  wrote: 
"In  the  explication  of  this  question  it  is  much  in- 
sisted upon  that  it  be  enquired  whether,  we  say  we 
believe  Christ's  body  to  be  really  in  the  sacrament, 
we  mean  that  body,  that  flesh  that  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  that  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried. 
In  answer,  I  know  none  else  that  He  had  or  hath; 
there  is  but  one  body  of  Christ  natural  and  glori- 


196  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

fied;  but  he  that  says  that  body  is  glorified  that  was 
crucified,  says  it  is  the  same  body  but  not  after  the 
same  manner;  and  so  it  is  in  the  sacrament;  we  eat 
and  drink  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  that  was 
broken  and  poured  forth;  for  there  is  no  other 
body,  no  other  blood  of  Christ;  but  though  it  is 
the  same  which  we  eat  and  drink,  yet  it  is  in  an- 
other manner."  Ignatius  wrote  :  "The  false  teach- 
ers (who  denied  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  man- 
hood) abstain  from  Eucharist  and  prayer,  because 
they  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  Eucharist  is  the 
flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  suffered 
for  our  sins,  which  by  His  goodness  the  Father 
raised  up."  "Breaking  one  bread,  which  is  the 
medicine  of  immortality,  the  antidote  that  we 
should  not  die,  but  live  in  Christ  Jesus  forever." 

"The  gift  of  the  Eucharist  is  precisely  that  gift 
of  the  flesh  or  body  and  blood  of  Christ — the 
spiritual  principle  and  life  of  Christ's  manhood, 
inseparable  from  His  whole  living  self — the  mean- 
ing of  which,  apart  from  all  question  of  how  or 
when  we  receive  it." 

.Gore  contends  that  "the  gift  and  presence  are 
spiritual,  but  by  the  word  'spiritual'  it  expresses 
not  what  is  unreal,  but  what  is  profoundly  real. 
In  whatever  sense  then  we  approach  and  receive 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  as 
spiritually  present,  it  is  certain  that  they  are  in  the 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Antony  Theologians     197 

deepest  sense  real  and  really  present."  125.  "The 
more  the  modern  physicist  investigates  the  ulti- 
mate nature  of  matter,  the  more  he  breaks  down 
all  the  supposed  barriers  between  matter  and  spir- 
it." "The  risen  body  of  Christ  was  spiritual  in  a 
different  sense  not  because  it  was  less  than  before 
material,  but  because  in  it  matter  was  wholly  and 
finally  subjugated  to  spirit  and  not  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  physical  life.  Matter  no  longer  restricted 
Him  or  hindered.  It  had  become  the  pure  and 
transparent  vehicle  of  spiritual  purpose."  127. 
This  is  illustrated  by  the  appearance  and  disap- 
pearances at  will  after  His  resurrection:  He  be- 
came visible  and  invisible  according  to  His  divine 
purpose.  He  appeared  to  His  disciples  when  the 
doors  were  closed,  "yet  to  exhibit  to  them  the  at- 
tributes even  of  the  mortal  body,  by  eating  with 
them.  Henceforth,  during  the  40  days.  He  never 
lived  with  them  in  the  life  of  earth,  but  was  mani- 
fested from  time  to  time  as  His  spiritual  purpose 
required.  From  a  physical  point  of  view,  spirit- 
ualization  of  matter  as  is  involved  in  this  concep- 
tion of  a  spiritual  body  is  becoming  perhaps,  more 
and  more  conceivable;  less  out  of  analogy  with 
our  ultimate  conceptions  of  matter.  But  the  im- 
portant point  to  notice  is  that  the  spirituality  of 
the  risen  body  of  Christ,  lies  not  so  much  in  any 
physical  qualities  as  in  the  fact  that  His  material 


198  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

presence  is  absolutely  controlled  by  His  spiritual 
will.  His  manifestations  were  manifestations  to 
special  persons — those  whose  faith  He  willed  to 
rel^^indle — under  special  forms  for  special  pur- 
poses. 

"And  if  all  subjection  to  conditions  of  space  was 
over  for  the  body  of  the  resurrection,  even  more 
certainly  was  It  over  for  the  glorified  body  (if  any 
distinction  is  to  be  drawn),  the  body  in  which  He 
through  His  whole  person  has  become  'quickening 
spirit,'  even  His  flesh  and  blood  are  'spirit  and 
life.'  As  to  what  the  'body  of  glory'  is,  silence  is 
our  best  wisdom.  We  feel  sure  indeed  that  He 
retains  'all  things  appertaining  to  the  perfection  of 
man's  nature' ;  and  with  St.  John  we  believe  that 
He  not  only  has  come  but  also  is  to  come  again  in 
the  flesh.  But  it  is  not  in  the  flesh  and  blood  of  our 
present  conceptions,  which  'cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God' ;  nor  have  we  any  faculties  to  con- 
ceive the  glory  of  which  even  our  material  nature 
in  Him  is  susceptible.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know 
that  in  the  perfection  of  our  nature,  but  in  glory 
inconceivable,  He  still  exists;  and  it  is  out  of  this 
glory  that  He  feeds  us  with  the  flesh  and  blood 
which  are  spirit  and  life."     130. 

"What  materially  fundamentally  means  are  be- 
coming increasingly  vague."  131.  "Though 
Christ  condescends  to  use  material  means,  the  sac- 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     199 

ramental  elements,  yet  He  is  never  subject  to 
them."  "No  physical  organs  can  appropriate  the 
accompanying  spiritual  gift"  in  the  Eucharist.  As 
Mozley  states:  "To  suppose  that  a  man's  natural 
mouth  and  teeth  can  eat  a  spiritual  thing,  would  be 
a  simple  confusion  of  ideas."  He  quotes  the  cele- 
brated phrase  of  Augustine:  "Believe  and  thou 
hast  eaten."  And  yet  we  must  not  separate  and 
make  faith  so  entirely  independent  of  the  act  of 
actual  participation  in  the  Eucharist,  for  the  words 
of  the  Institution  are  "Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body," 
and  the  Apostle  severely  condemns  those  at  Cor- 
inth who  fell  into  abuses. 

I  believe  there  are  positive  indications  of  an  un- 
mistakable character  that  the  tendency  of  Protes- 
tant Churches  in  Great  Britain,  is  toward  a  doc- 
trine more  in  harmony  with  the  Lutheran,  and  that 
when  once  they  understand  our  doctrine  they  will 
find  it  altogether  acceptable.  Unfortunately  we 
have  been  so  misunderstood,  that  we  are  often 
grossly  misrepresented.  With  all  our  explanations 
and  denials,  they  insist  upon  charging  us  with  hold- 
ing the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation,  which  some 
would  understand  as  only  a  refined  degree  of  tran- 
substantiation — hardly  differing  in  kind  but  only  in 
degree. 

But  the  future  appears  brighter,  as  my  reading 
and  intercourse  with  able  representatives  of  the 


200  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

various  denominations  in  Great  Britain  lead  me  to 
conclude,  A  learned  bishop  recently  assured  me 
that  they  were  not  less  pronounced  in  their  doc- 
trine respecting  the  Real  Presence  of  the  Person 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  that  the  Scotch 
Presbyterians  had  never  been  Zwinglians,  but  held 
to  a  Real  Presence.  In  a  recent  volume  on  the 
Church  and  the  Sacraments,  by  Principal  Forsyth, 
there  is  decisive  evidence  of  the  positive  restless- 
ness in  the  Free  Church  respecting  their  former 
doctrine  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment. He  appeals  to  his  Church  to  "get  rid  of 
the  idea  which  has  impoverished  worship  beyond 
measure,  that  the  act  is  mainly  commemoration. 
No  Church  can  live  on  that.  How  can  we  have  a 
mere  memorial  on  one  who  is  still  alive,  still  our 
life,  still  present  with  us  and  acting  in  us?" 

"A  sacrament  is  as  much  more  than  a  symbol  as 
a  symbol  is  more  than  a  memorial.  It  is  not  an 
hour  of  instruction  but  of  communion.  It  is  an 
act  created  by  the  eternal  Act  of  Christ  which 
made  and  makes  the  Church.  It  is  Christ's  act 
offering  Himself  to  men.  Christ  offers  anew  to  us, 
as  He  did  at  the  Supper,  the  finished  offering 
which  on  the  Cross  He  gave  to  God  once  for  all." 
It  is  a  sacramental  act  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  God's 
grace  is  given  through  the  media  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  as  the  stream  is  given  through  the  conduit. 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     201 

"This  grace  fills  the  sacraments  always  with  the 
same  power  that  gave  them  being.  So  there  is  a 
certain  place  for  the  idea  of  the  opus  operatum  m 
the  sacraments."  "The  deed  of  God  comes  home 
through  a  living  soul  indeed  but  chiefly  In  its  own 
wealth  and  power — the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and 
forever." 

"If  the  elements  are  and  remain  material,  the 
act  which  uses  them  is  spiritual  and  real.  What- 
ever is  symbolical,  the  action  is  real.  In  so  far  as 
our  action  Is  symbolical,  it  Is  symbolical  of  Christ's 
Act,  not  of  His  essence.  But  it  is  symbolical  in 
the  ancient  sense  of  the  word  symbol.  It  does  not 
simply  point  to  the  thing  signified  nor  suggest  it, 
but  conveys  it,  has  it  within  it,  brings  It  with  it, 
gives  it,  does  something.  Is  really  sacramental." 
Christ  seems  to  say  to  the  communicant:  "This 
bread,  broken  and  eaten,  represents  the  giving  and 
the  partaking  of  my  person.  But  there  is  far  more 
than  a  memorial  of  an  event  or  a  mere  symbol  of 
an  idea. 

"It  was  symbolic  In  the  great  sense  and  really 
sacramental.  It  does  more  than  mean — it  conveys 
what  It  means."  "The  great  meaning  of  the  pass- 
age and  of  the  rite  depends  on  our  personal  and 
present  relation  to  Christ,  and  on  our  conception 
of  Him." 

Harnack  states :  "What  is  nowadays  understood 


202  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

by  'symbol'  is  a  thing  which  it  is  not  that  which  it 
represents;  at  that  time  (i.  e.,  the  early  Chris- 
tian centuries)  symbol  denoted  a  thing  which,  in 
some  kind  of  sense,  really  is  what  it  signifies;  but 
on  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  ideas  of  the 
period,  the  really  heavenly  element  by  either  in 
or  behind,  the  visible  form  without  investing  itself 
with  it.  According  to  distinction  of  a  symbolic 
from  a  realistic  conception  of  the  Supper  is  alto- 
gether to  be  rejected."  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmatic, 
quoted  by  Gore. 

"The  Lord's  Supper  was  historically  attached 
to  Jewish  usage — to  the  paschal  feast."  Jesus 
"lays  stress  on  the  bread  first  as  the  essence  of  the 
matter.  He  does  not  lay  it  on  the  flesh  in  the 
meal,  as  if  He  would  avert  a  connection  with  His 
mere  flesh  and  fix  it  on  His  body  or  person."  236. 
"It  was  Christ's  body  that  was  taken,  not  His  flesh. 
The  presence  of  His  body  meant,  in  symbolic  lan- 
guage, the  presence  of  His  person.  The  body 
means  the  entire  person  and  presence  of  Christ. 
He  will,  symbolized  by  the  bread,  be  there  in  per- 
son, breaking  the  bread  of  life."  "The  elements 
are  made  sacramental  by  promise  and  by  use; 
they  are  not  transmuted  in  substance.  They  are 
charged  with  Christ,  but  not  converted  into 
Christ." 

"In  the  sacrament  we  have  much  more  than 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     203 

mere  emblems,  we  have  real  conveyance.  What  Is 
given  to  us  is  Christ  Himself,  His  person.  The 
great  matter  is  to  recognize  the  real  Presence  in 
holy  and  saving  action;  the  minor  matter  is  the 
rationale  of  His  procedure." 

It  was  a  sacrament  that  Christ  made  at  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  not  a  sacrifice,  but  in  time 
the  sacramental  side  was  subordinated  to  the  sac- 
rificial. Our  Church  places  great  emphasis  upon 
the  unique  character  of  the  Eucharist  and  its  spe- 
cial blessings  for  the  communicant;  and  our  peo- 
ple show  their  faith  and  high  appreciation  of  the. 
actual  benefits  by  their  faithful  attendance.  As 
an  illustration,  a  laboring  man,  through  a  mis- 
understanding as  to  the  hour  of  worship,  did  not 
reach  the  church  until  the  Communion  service  had 
closed.  He  had  walked  many  miles  and  his  dis- 
appointment was  great.  His  soul  was  greatly 
stirred  and  he  could  not  suppress  the  Intense  feel- 
ing of  disappointment;  and  after  the  benediction 
was  pronounced,  he  told  the  pastor  of  his  great 
sorrow,  saying:  "I  did  so  build  upon  it."  The  faith- 
ful pastor  saw  his  duty,  and  did  it  by  solemnly  ad- 
ministering the  Holy  Communion  to  the  one  who, 
with  intense  longing  and  with  eyes  fixed  upon 
Jesus,  had  walked  so  many  miles  to  meet  and  re- 
ceive his  Saviour  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 


204  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

We  cannot  emphasize  too  strongly  the  im- 
portance of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  word  and  the  sacraments  cannot  be  separated  . 
and  the  one  subordinated  to  the  other;  but  each 
must  ever  be  given  its  place,  and  they  must  contin- 
ue together  in  the  Christian  Church  as  they  have 
from  the  beginning  of  the  primitive  Church.  In 
fact  that  which  constitutes  a  Christian  Church  is  a 
body  of  believers  among  whom  the  Word  is 
preached  and  the  sacraments  administered  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  teachings  of  Christ. 

In  the  Holy  Communion  we  publicly  confess 
Christ  as  our  once  crucified  but  risen  and  exalted 
Redeemer  who  instituted  the  Eucharist  and  who 
now  gives  Himself  to  us  when  we  partake  of  the 
bread  and  wine.  We  are  taught  that  in  this  sacra- 
ment Christ  gives  us  something,  and  we  look  for- 
ward to  this  Holy  Communion  expecting  in  ac- 
cordance with  His  word,  to  receive  something. 
We  take  Christ  at  His  word.  He  gives  Himself 
and  we  receive  something  substantial.  It  is  no 
mere  sentiment  expressed  in  a  figure  of  speech, 
which  conveys  no  special,  substantial  blessing. 
There  was  something  in  Christ's  words  of  the  In- 
stitution, when  He  took  the  bread,  blessed  and 
brake  it  and  said  to  His  disciples  as  He  gave  it  to 
them:  "Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body."  When  He 
used  this  unqualified  language  on  this  solemn  occa- 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     205 

sion,  there  was  profound  impresslveness  in  His 
speech  and  feeling.  That  utterance  came  from 
the  depths  of  His  soul,  and  He  knew  the  signifi- 
cance of  His  own  words  and  the  impression  that 
He  would  convey  to  His  disciples.  I  cannot  con- 
ceive of  Him  using  such  language  if  He  only  in- 
tended it  in  a  merely  figurative  sense  ;  for  He  could 
easily  have  qualified  it,  or  used  such  plain  language 
that  could  not  have  been  interpreted  as  so  many 
have  understood  it, 

"We  are  become  partakers  of  Christ,"  (Heb. 
3  :i4)  but  where  is  this  so  effectually  realized  as 
in  that  Supper,  where  in  the  bread  that  we  eat 
we  have  communion  or  participation  in  the  body 
of  Christ.  Christ  once  for  all,  w^hen  He  offered 
up  Himself  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us 
through  the  sacrifice  of  His  own  body  on  the  cross. 
Hence  we  are  emboldened  by  the  blood  of  Jesus 
shed  for  us,  to  come  in  faith  with  assurance  and 
conviction  that  Christ  Himself,  the  unseen,  is  real- 
ly present  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar.  I  say  we 
may  come  with  this  assurance;  for  many  have  real- 
ized the  conviction  so  clearly  and  profoundly  in 
its  effects  upon  their  being  and  life,  that  the  evi- 
dential reasons  could  not  be  gainsaid, — no  more 
than  in  the  case  of  the  young  man  whose  sight 
Jesus  had  restored.  He  could  not  explain  and 
answer  their  questions,  but  he  had  the  unshaken 


2o6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

conviction  that  whilst  once  he  was  blind  now  he 
could  see,  and  all  the  logic  of  the  most  learned  ones 
could  not  convince  him  to  the  contrary.  Such  evi- 
dence is  the  most  soul-satisfying  to  the  Christian, 
and  It  cannot  be  overthrown  nor  silenced  by  the 
sophistry  of  the  most  learned  unbeliever.  The 
God-consciousness  is  His  direct  witness  to  the  soul. 

We  all  believe  in  our  mystical  union  with  Christ 
though  it  surpasses  our  comprehension.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  real  presence  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
Here  we  enter  into  the  most  Intimate  and  vital 
union  with  Him.  It  is  the  divinely  appointed 
means  by  which  are  conveyed  to  us  the  blessings 
and  life  that  Christ  secured  by  His  sufferings, 
death  and  resurrection. 

In  this  sacrament  Christ  is  the  giver,  and  He 
gives  Himself  through  these  outward  symbols. 
He  is  the  Invisible  grace.  He  is  present  though 
we  see  Him  not.  When  Christ  said,  "Take,  eat," 
He  gave  something,  and  we  must  not  explain  that 
something  away.  We  accept  His  words  unchanged, 
with  faith  and  without  unbelief,  even  though  we 
can  neither  explain  nor  fully  comprehend  them. 
The  real  man  himself  is  as  Invisible  as  Christ. 
The  face  Is  often  the  real  Inner-man  only  In  dis- 
guise. We  cannot  see  the  most  real  hidden  man 
of  the  heart,  but  only  the  outward  expression. 

The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  may  be 


Consensus  of  Opinion  Among  Theologians     207 

designated  as  the  visible  embodiment  of  Christ  in 
His  work  of  redemption.  These  elements  are  not 
only  signs  of  the  inward  grace,  but  the  channels 
through  which  Christ  in  His  presence  conveys  to 
us  special  grace.  We  appropriate  Christ  in  a 
special  sense,  for  is  it  not  in  the  words  of  the 
Apostle,  "a  communion  with  the  body  of  Christ?" 


THE   ANALOGY  OF  FAITH 

THE  Analogy  of  Faith,"  as  I  recall  It, 
was  a  familiar  theological  term  when 
a  student  at  this  Seminary,  and  doubtless  it 
still  continues  (whether  in  the  same  formula 
or  not) ,  to  express  an  important  truth  that 
should  be  observed  in  order  to  arrive  at  the 
meaning  of  some  disputed  passage.  In  seek- 
ing to  determine  the  exact  meaning  that  St. 
Paul  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per as  he  describes  it  in  I  Cor.  ii  :25,  we  cannot 
escape  the  impression  that  he  regarded  it  as  a 
sacrament  of  momentous  import  that  could  not  be 
abused  with  impunity;  for  he  warns  them  against 
such  profane  violation  by  referring  them  to  the 
severe  and  even  fatal  judgments  that  were  meted 
out  to  some  for  disregarding  the  solemn  character 
of  this  divine  ordinance,  In  which  they  had  failed 
to  discern  the  body  of  our  Lord. 

I  know  the  attempts  to  rid  the  language  of  all 
divine  content,  and  the  various  expedients  to  elim- 
inate the  Person  of  Christ  from  the  profoundly 

208 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  209 

significant  words  used  in  the  Apostle's  warning  to 
the  communicant:  "For  he  that  eateth  and  drinlc- 
eth,  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  himself,  if 
he  discern  not  the  body.  For  this  cause  many 
among  you  are  weak  and  sickly,  and  not  a  few 
sleep."  It  cannot  be  safe  exegesis  to  resolve  at 
once  to  explain  away  that  "body"  just  because  it  is 
not  in  harmony  with  our  views  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. We  cannot  reduce  the  words  to  a  meaning- 
less phrase,  emptied  of  all  content.  It  is  natural 
to  conclude  that  Paul  who  must  have  understood 
what  he  was  saying,  likewise  meant  what  he  was 
saying,  and  why  would  he  have  warned  them 
against  not  discerning  the  body,  if  he  did  not  wish 
to  convey  the  impression  that  the  body  of  Christ 
was  really  present  in  that  sacrament? 

But  we  are  left  in  a  dilemma,  for  in  the  preced- 
ing chapter  St.  Paul  explains  what  he  really  meant 
by  that  ambiguous  word  "  o-co/xa  "  that  has  troubled 
so  many  in  their  efforts  to  interpret  the  writer  of 
this  Epistle.  The  familiar  words  In  I  Cor.  10:16: 
"The  bread  which  we  break,  is  It  not  a  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ?"  In  this  explanatory  and 
emphatic  passage  he  uses  the  same  word  for  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  his  meaning  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  seems  unmistakable.  "It  may  therefore 
be  assumed,"  as  Dr.  Andrews  states,  "that  these 
words   represent  not   merely   the  Apostle's   own 


2IO  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

view,  but  the  theory  which  was  universally  ac- 
cepted and  regarded  as  axiomatic  by  the  Christian 
Church  in  his  day."    151. 

We  may  learn  something  from  the  analogy  that 
St.  Paul  gives  between  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the 
well  known  feasts  among  the  pagans.  Whilst  he 
did  not  recognize  the  existence  of  their  deities — 
outside  of  their  imaginations,  he  knew  that  they 
were  real  to  the  mind  of  the  pagan  worshippers, 
and  hence  the  force  of  his  reasoning  is  not  weak- 
ened by  their  non-existence.  He  refers  to  the  ex- 
isting beliefs,  and  these  were  real  facts  that  exert- 
ed a  potent  influence  over  the  minds  and  lives  of 
the  worshippers,  for  they  believe  that  in  their  pa- 
gan feasts,  they  actually  entered  into  participation 
with  their  deities,  and  the  Apostle  has  this  in  mind 
in  his  argument.  Hence  he  would  have  the  Chris- 
tians believe  that  in  the  Eucharist  they  really  en- 
ter into  communion  or  participation  with  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ. 

He  must  have  used  the  word  Communion  in  the 
current  sense  of  his  times  when  referring  to  the 
pagan  worshippers  at  their  feasts  in  the  temple, 
and  he  did  not  intend  that  it  should  be  understood 
in  a  different  sense,  so  as  to  bring  it  into  accord 
with  some  modern  conceptions  as  to  what  the 
writer  should  have  meant  to  say.  As  Kirsopp 
Lake  states:  "St.  Paul  clearly  means  that  the  Co- 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  211 

rinthians  knew  quite  well  that  the  Eucharist  is  a 
rite  which  really  conveys  that  which  the  heathen 
erroneously  thought  to  obtain  in  their  sacrificial 
meals — that  is,  participation  in  the  Divine  na- 
ture." 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  language  of  St.  Paul 
cannot  be  harmonized  with  any  mere  symbolical 
view.  So  grievous  is  the  sin  of  those  who  eat  and 
drink  in  an  unworthy  manner,  that  they  are  held 
responsible  for  profaning  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
the  Lord,  not  recognizing  the  sanctity  of  the  Body. 
The  Apostle  reminds  them  of  the  judgment  that 
had  been  visited  upon  them,  in  the  form  of  sick- 
ness and  even  death.  I  have  always  felt  that  it 
was  most  unfortunate  that  in  the  so-called  Au- 
thorized Version,  the  mistranslation  made  timid 
souls  fearful  of  the  Eucharist,  lest  they  might 
thereby  incur  "damnation"  instead  of  receiving 
Christ,  though  the  word  damnation  has  no  author- 
ized place  in  the  New  Testament.  But  at  all 
events  the  penal  judgment  was  of  such  a  serious 
character  that  the  sin  committed  must  have  been 
correspondingly  great,  and  this  we  can  easily 
understand  with  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

For  years  I  have  been  interested  In  the  study  of 
comparative  religions.  It  is  the  scientific  method, 
for  comparison  brings  out  the  real  qualities  of  re- 


212  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

semblances  and  differences,  and  sheds  valuable 
side  lights  upon  certain  features  of  Christian  faith 
and  worship.  Hence  it  must  not  be  overlooked 
when  we  seek  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  the  Holy 
Communion  in  the  primitive  Church.  In  fact,  in 
a  critical  study  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist, 
it  is  important  to  give  and  have  clearly  in  mind 
an  historical  setting  of  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  Institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  its 
relation  to  the  Passover,  as  well  as  the  nature  of 
the  contemporary  pagan  feasts  and  the  light  they 
throw  upon  the  meaning  of  the  crucial  words  em- 
ployed In  their  communions  with  their  gods.  The 
ancient  Greeks  had  pronounced  and  profound  con- 
victions as  to  their  close  communion  with  their 
gods.  It  was  under  various  aspects  that  this  per- 
sonal communion  was  sought  and  realized,  but  the 
sacramental  must  have  been  the  highest.  The  pre- 
cise method  through  which  they  attained  It  varied, 
though  generally  some  sacred  animal  was  selected 
as  representing  the  anthropomorphic  god,  and  In 
the  mind  of  the  worshippers,  they  by  partaking  of 
its  flesh  and  blood,  at  the  same  time  actually  par- 
took of  the  god's  own  life  and  self,  for  they  ate 
the  god. 

The  Apostle  Paul  had  knowledge  of  their  belief 
and  practices  as  his  references  show;  and  he  did 
not  Invent  a  new  language,  but  used  old  words 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  213 

taken  from  the  pagan  feasts  to  express  the  Chris- 
tian ideas  contained  in  the  Holy  Communion  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.*  He  did  not  borrow  from  them 
this  sacred  ordinance,  nor  the  Christian  concep- 
tions, for  he  received  these  from  the  Lord  as  he 
tells  us,  but  he  used  the  familiar  pagan  terms  for 
expressing  them. 

In  the  pagan  cults  the  Greeks  discerned  the  pres- 
ence of  their  god,  and  they  believed  that  they  real- 
ized actual  communion  or  participation  with  the 
body  and  even  ate  the  god. 

Hence,  had  St.  Paul  not  really  recognized  and 
believed  as  he  clearly  states  in  positive  language, 
the  real  presence  of  the  body  (glorified)  of  Christ, 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  he  would  never  have 
made  use  of  such  positive  terms  as  when  he  de- 
clared: "The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?"  for  in  his  day 
such  words  could  have  had  but  one  meaning.  Tak- 
ing the  view  of  a  contemporary  it  seems  to  me  that 
his  language  could  admit  of  no  interpretation  less 
than  that  of  the  Real  Presence  of  the  glorified 
body  of  Christ  when  he  denounced  the  grievous 

*  Whilst  there  is  a  vocabulary  of  nearly  5000  words  in  the 
New  Testament,  Deissman  estimates  that  probably  not  more 
than  fifty  are  "Christian"  or  "Biblical"  Greek  words.  "The 
great  enriching  of  the  Greek  lexicon  by  Christianity  did  not 
take  place  till  the  later  ecclesiastical  period,  with  its  enormous 
development  of  dogmatic,  liturgical  and  legal  concepts." 


214  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

sin  committed  at  Corinth  in  their  shameful  abuses 
through  "not  discerning  the  Body"  in  the  Holy 
Communion.  He  certainly  meant  that  Christ's 
body  was  there  or  else  he  would  not  have  con- 
demned them  for  not  discerning  that  Body. 
Hence  the  Lutheran  Scriptural  view  is  fully  sus- 
tained by  an  appeal  to  the  contemporary  use  of 
the  terms  employed  in  this  holy  ordinance,  with 
which  St.  Paul  was  thoroughly  familiar. 

Following  the  words:  "Shall  be  under  guilt  of 
violating  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord,"  Plum- 
mer  says:  "Dishonor  to  the  symbols  is  dishonor 
to  that  which  they  represent."  "What  is  certain 
is  that  those  who  rightly  receive  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  in  the  Eucharist,  receive  spiritually 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  How  this  takes 
place  is  beyond  our  comprehension,  and  it  is  vain 
to  claim  knowledge  which  cannot  be  possessed;  or 
to  attempt  to  explain  what  cannot  be  explained." 
He  quotes  Bishop  Thirlwall:  "If  there  is  a  point 
on  which  the  virtues  of  Scriptures,  of  the  purest 
ecclesiastical  tradition  and  of  our  own  Church  is 
more  express  and  uniform  than  another,  it  is  the 
peculiar  and  transcendent  quality  of  the  blessing 
which  this  sacrament  both  represents  and  exhibits, 
and  consequently  of  the  presence  by  which  that 
blessing  is  conferred.  How  this  presence  differed 
from  that  of  which  we  are  assured  by  our  Lord's 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  215 

promise,  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  His  name — whether  only  in  degree  or  in  kind, 
it  is  beyond  the  power  of  human  language  to  de- 
fine, and  of  human  thought  to  conceive.  It  is  a 
subject  fit,  not  for  curious  speculation  but  for  the 
exercise  of  pious  meditation  and  devotional  feel- 
ing; and  it  is  one  in  which  there  is  a  certainty  that 
the  highest  flight  of  contemplation  will  always  fall 
short  of  the  Divine  reality."      (I  Cor.  p.  244.) 

We  do  not  interpret  nor  exhaust  the  meaning 
of  the  Apostle's  significant  words:  "Not  discern- 
ing the  body"  by  dismissing  them  as  only  a  figura- 
tive expression;  for  they  must  convey  and  contain 
some  real,  positive  essence  or  else  why  was  the 
sin  of  those  so  great  at  Corinth  that  many  were 
visited  with  divine  chastisement  and  even  death? 
There  is  no  gain  in  seeking  to  remove  the  Christ 
who  says  to  the  communicant,  "Take,  eat;  this  is 
my  body."  Through  the  spiritual  eating  of  faith, 
we  receive  Him.  Nay,  since  every  soul  realizes 
such  a  need  of  Christ  and  would  enjoy  personal 
fellowship  with  Him  through  this  communion  or 
participation  with  His  body,  as  St.  Paul  says,  we 
have  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  why  then  should  men 
strive  to  argue  Him  out  of  their  doctrine  of  this 
sacrament?  With  less  effort  they  might  find 
Christ  really  present  in  His  Humanity  as  well 
as  in  His  Divinity,  and  realize  the  blessedness  of 


2i6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

those  who  in  the  Eucharist,  discern  the  Lord's 
body. 

The  intimate  connection  of  the  passage  follow- 
ing I  Cor.  io:i6,  shows  that  it  must  be  regarded 
in  the  light  of  that  which  precedes  it,  and  that  it 
must  be  taken  into  account  in  seeking  the  meaning 
that  the  Apostle  had  in  mind  when  uttering  the 
familiar  words  in  verse  i6.  He  sought  to  illus- 
trate or  confirm  the  truth  therein  expressed  by  re- 
ferring to  the  well  known  religious  practices  of  the 
Jewish  and  pagan  rites:  "Behold  Israel  after  the 
flesh:  have  not  they  that  eat  the  sacrifices  com- 
munion with  the  altar?"  As  Plummer  states :  "The 
main  point  to  which  the  Apostle  is  leading  his 
readers,  is  that  to  partake  ceremonially  of  the 
Thing  Sacrificed  is  to  become  a  sharer  in  the  Sacri- 
ficial Act,  and  all  that  it  involves."  The  Apos- 
tle's argument  is  to  show  from  the  Jewish  sacri- 
fices "that  participation  in  sacrificial  feasts  is  com- 
munion with  the  unseen.  They  are  in  fellowship 
with  the  altar,  and  therefore  with  the  unseen  God, 
whose  altar  it  is.  .  .  .  To  have  fellowship  with 
the  altar  is  to  have  fellowship  with  Him  whose 
sacrifices  are  offered  thereon.  There  is  something 
analogous  to  this  in  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the 
heathen;  but  in  that  case  the  unseen  power  Is  not 
divine.  * 

Rather,     there    is    no     reality    corresponding 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  217 

to  the  concept  that  they  have  in  their  minds,  for 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  idol,  beyond  their  im- 
agination only,  although  that  was  very  real  to  the 
worshippers  at  the  heathen  altars,  and  I  believe 
St.  Paul  meant  to  present  their  point  of  view  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  and  to  enable  him  to  ex- 
press his  own  thought  as  to  the  reality  of  the  com- 
munion in  the  Christian  rite,  for  as  the  pagans  held 
that  they  had  fellowship  with  their  no-gods,  the 
Christians  would  be  guilty  of  having  fellowship 
with  demons,  that  Paul  seems  to  have  recognized 
— should  they  participate  in  the  heathen  worship. 
As  Plummer  states :  "the  primitive  and  widespread 
idea  that  there,  in  sacrifice,  communion  between 
deity  and  worshipper,  and  between  the  different 
worshippers,  greatly  aided  St.  Paul  in  his  teaching. 
The  idea  that  evil  spirits  are  worshipped,  when 
idols  which  represent  non-existent  pagan  deities 
are  worshipped,  was  common  among  the  Jews, 
and  passed  over  from  them  into  the  Christian 
Church,  with  the  support  of  various  passages  in 
both  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament." 
Weinel,  In  St.  Paul,  the  Man  and  his  Work, 
holds  that  the  Apostle  believed  that  "we 
enter  into  a  mysterious,  and  at  once  sensual  and 
supersensual,  with  the  devils.  If  we  partake  of  the 
flesh  offered  them.  Paul  believed  this  as  firmly  as 
that  he  believed  in  the  Lord's  Supper.     He  par- 


21 8  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

took  of  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  Such 
contemporary  conceptions  of  pagan  thought  re- 
specting their  real  communion  with  their  particular 
deities,  even  though  they  were  non-existent  beyond 
their  imagination,  cannot  fail  to  assist  us  In  our 
Interpretation  of  St.  Paul  when  he  uses  the  same 
words  In  connection  with  his  explanation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Lord's  Supper  In  I  Cor.  io:i6. 
With  such  realistic  language  and  conceptions  it  is 
evident  that  It  meant  something  very  real  to  him, 
and  far  more  real  than  a  mere  memorial  of  an  ab- 
sent Christ;  existing  between  the  pagan  and  Chris- 
tian feast,  for  he  recognizes  a  certain  similarity. 
The  Apostle  refers  to  the  Jewish  altar;  that 
they  that  eat  the  sacrifices  have  communion  with 
the  altar,  and  this  not  only  throws  light  upon  the 
meaning  of  the  Christian  rite,  but  Is  interesting  in 
this  connection,  In  view  of  the  prominent  relation 
that  the  Eucharist  sustains  to  the  altar  In  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church.  The  altar  stood  for  God 
among  the  ancients,  and  was  the  symbol  of  His 
presence  in  sacrifice.  Paul  saw  one  in  Athens  dedi- 
cated to  "the  Unknown  God,"  and  a  similar  one 
was  discovered  In  the  excavations  at  Olympla,  and 
another  may  still  be  seen  on  the  Palatine  hill  In 
Rome.  The  only  reference  in  the  New  Testament 
to  the  Christian  altar  occurs  in  Heb.  13:10,  and 
the  first  mention  by  a  Church  Father  is  from  Igna- 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  219 

tins  in  connection  with  the  Eucharist,  from  the 
celebration  of  which  sacred  ordinance  it  was  insep- 
arable, and  was  often  called  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Altar.  The  altar  occupied  the  most  prominent 
place  in  the  Church,  for  the  Eucharist  celebrated 
thereon  was  the  most  conspicuous  as  well  as  the 
most  sacred  and  precious  rite  of  the  Church.  In 
the  early  period  of  the  house-Church,  a  table  was 
used  for  the  sacred  elements,  but  later  there  were 
also  special,  and  often  elaborate  and  magnificent 
altars,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  great  Cathedrals  of 
Europe. 

Conybeare  says:  "That  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
from  the  first  a  meal  symbolic  of  Christian  unity 
and  commemorative  of  Christ's  death  is  ques- 
tioned by  none.  But  Paul,  while  he  saw  this  much 
in  it,  saw  much  more,  or  he  could  not  in  the  same 
epistle  x:i8-2  2  assimilate  communion  in  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  Jesus,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  sacri- 
ficial communion  with  the  altar  which  made  Israel 
after  the  flesh  one ;  and  on  the  other  hand  commun- 
ion with  devils  attained  by  pagans  through  sacri- 
fices offered  before  idols.  Paul  caps  his  argument 
thus :  'Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and 
the  cup  of  demons.'  These  words  with  the  content 
show  that  Paul  like  the  Fathers  in  the  Church,  re- 
garded the  gods  and  the  goddesses  as  real  living, 
supernatural  beings,  but  malignant.     They  were 


220  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  powers  and  principalities  of  the  air  with  whom 
he  was  ever  at  war.  .  .  .  The  notion  that  by  eat- 
ing the  flesh,  or  particularly  by  drinking  the  blood, 
of  another  living  being,  a  man  absorbs  its  nature 
or  life  into  its  own,  is  one  which  appears  among 
primitive  peoples  in  many  forms.  But  this  effect 
of  participation  in  bread  and  the  cup  was  not  in 
Paul's  opinion  automatic,  was  no  opus  operatiim; 
it  depended  on  the  ethical  cooperation  of  the  be- 
liever, who  must  not  eat  and  drink  unworthily  .  .  . 
With  what  awe  Paul  regarded  the  elements  mys- 
tically identified  with  Christ's  body  and  life  is  clear 
from  his  declaration  in  I  Cor.  ii  :27." 

Owen  C.  Whitehouse  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dic- 
tionary cautions  us  respecting  the  Gospel  narra- 
tives in  their  relation  to  demonology,  "that  it 
should  not  be  forgotten  ( i )  that  we  are  dealing 
with  the  reports  of  chroniclers  whose  minds  were 
necessarily  colored  by  the  prevailing  beliefs  of  the 
age,  psychic  and  cosmic;  (2)  that  the  properly  de- 
moniac element  is  almost  wholly  absent  from  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  ...  St.  Paul,  however,  shared 
the  conceptions  of  his  contemporaries  respecting 
devils."  Whitehouse  agrees  with  certain  scholars 
"that  in  reference  to  I  Cor.  10:19,  2^'  ^t-  P^ul 
borrowed  from  Alexandrian  Judaism  the  belief 
that  the  offerings  to  heathen  deities  were  offerings 
to  demons,  and  he  quotes  the  two  examples  of  the 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  221 

Christian  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Jewish  sacrifice. 
In  both  cases  there  is  a  real  communion  between 
the  participator  and  the  object  of  worship.  The 
statement  in  8  :4,  'We  know  that  no  idol  is  any- 
thing in  the  world,'  does  not  involve  any  incon- 
sistency. For  St.  Paul,  the  gods  as  such  are  crea- 
tures of  the  imagination;  yet  he  does  not  hold  that 
nothing  at  all  is  behind  the  image-worship  of  the 
heathen,  but  that  demons  lurk  there  and  the  king- 
dom of  Satan,  and  that  participators  in  heathen 
feasts  are  drawn  into  the  circle  of  their  evil  influ- 
ence." 

We  recognize  the  superficial  analogy  between 
the  Christian  and  pagan  rite  as  did  St.  Paul  who 
emphasized  the  transcendent  character  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  yet  as 
Ramsay  states:  "By  participating  in  the  pagan 
ceremonies  the  Christian  entered  into  a  fellow- 
ship united  through  daemonic  powers,  and  was 
thereby  repelled  from  the  fellowship  which  is  ce- 
mented by  the  Christian  Sacrament.  No  one  can 
read  this  passage  intelligently  without  perceiving 
that  Paul  regarded  the  Eucharist  not  as  a  mere 
symbolic  ceremony,  but  as  a  force  of  infinite  poten- 
tiality in  the  life  of  man  and  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Church."  To  Paul  the  rite  has  far  greater 
significance  than  we  should  gather  from  the  nar- 
rative of  Mark;  and  yet  his  opinion  on  this  mat- 


22  2  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Stepper 

ter  is  seen  only  from  I  Cor.  lo.  We  take  kolvupU 
dal/jLovLuv  In  the  sense  of  'a  communion  and  fellow- 
sliip  (of  men  with  one  another)  united  and  ce- 
mented through  daemonic  powers.  .  .  .  He  is 
speaking  of  forces  and  spiritual  powers,  not  of  ma- 
terial things.  Those  are  the  realities  of  life:  the 
spirit  is  the  true  body:  the  material  thing  is  merely 
outward  appearance.  .  .  .  It  is  in  chapter  lO  that 
we  learn  most  about  the  power  and  meaning  which 
Paul  felt  to  lie  in  the  Eucharist.  That  point  of 
view  is  one  with  which  in  modern  times  many  find 
it  difficult  fully  to  sympathize.  Paul's  view  is  of 
the  first  century,  the  belief  of  one  trained  in  Jew- 
ish thought  and  in  the  ideas  of  a  Graeco-Oriental 
city  like  Tarsus;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  understand 
it.  Probably  they  do  not  err  so  far  from  the  truth 
as  those  do  who  neglect  altogether  the  power 
which  he  attributes  to  the  sacred  rite,  and  see  In 
It  a  mere  symbolic  and  occasional  reminiscence  of 
the  Lord's  death."  "One  who  reads  Ch.  II  too 
superficially  might  readily  understand  from  v.  17 
that  Paul  thought  of  the  rite  only  in  that  fashion, 
as  a  memory  and  testimony  of  the  Lord's  death. 
But  underneath  that  verse  lies  the  whole  trans- 
cendent and  supreme  potentiality  which  Paul  knew 
to  exist  in  the  fact  of  the  death.  The  Lord's 
death  was  to  Paul  the  essential  and  overpowering 
fact  In  the  force  of  the  Faith.     The  account  in 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  223 

chapter  10  must  therefore  always  be  read  along 
with  that  in  11,  as  indeed  it  necessarily  would  be 
fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  who  takes  the 
Epistle  as  a  continuous  letter,  and  does  not  cheat 
himself  by  reading  11  apart  from  10.  The  two 
accounts  are  clearly  united.  They  form  part  of 
the  treatment  of  one  subject;  and  the  view  which  is 
most  prominently  put  in  10  is  repeated  in  12:12 
under  another  image."    Expos.  Times. 

Whitehouse  refers  to  the  "enormous  range  of 
belief  in  demonology,  in  all  its  varieties,  and  the 
extent  to  which  it  penetrated  into  the  popular  be- 
lief and  practice  from  the  hoary  antiquity  of 
Babylonian  and  Egyptian  magic  down  to  the  time 
of  the  Reformation  and  beyond,  is  a  fact  of  which 
this  modern  age  of  scientific  discovery  is  but  dimly 
conscious.  Monumental  evidence  presents  a  vast 
array  of  examples.  Respecting  modern  examples 
of  demoniacal  possession  and  exorcism  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  speak  with  certainty,  though  some  striking 
examples  appear  well  authenticated."  We  know 
that  Martin  Luther  was  not  exempt  from  the  influ- 
ences of  his  contemporaries,  for  he  did  not  escape 
the  inheritance  of  his  age  respecting  the  prevailing 
belief  in  demonology,  nor  was  he  the  last  to  be 
troubled  with  the  strange  hallucinations  concerning 
the  activities  of  demons  in  warring  against  the 
children   of   men   when   engaged   in   a    righteous 


224  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

cause.  We  know  how  even  to-day  millions  of  the 
people  of  Southern  India  are  tortured  with  the 
belief  that  the  evil  ones  have  power  over  them 
and  they  resort  to  various  devices  and  compro- 
mises to  escape  their  malignant  influence.  The 
history  of  Witchcraft  even  in  Massachusetts,  and 
in  Europe  bear  testimony  to  similar  delusions. 

Evans,  commenting  on  I  Cor.  io:i8  says:  "Ac- 
cording to  St.  Paul  the  Eucharistic  Feast  is  an  anti- 
type of  the  sacrificial  meal  of  the  Peace-offering 
here  as  it  is  of  the  Passover  in  ch.  5.  And  from 
the  significant  word  altar  of  sacrifice  it  seems  that 
the  Apostle's  thought  was  that  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
as  given  back  from  the  altar  of  the  Cross,  is  the 
medium  of  communion  in  the  eating  thereof  and 
the  real  and  therefore  spiritual  food  of  His  Body, 
by  feasting  on  which  we  have  fellowship  with  Him- 
self and  with  one  another  and  through  Himself 
with  God.  His  human  nature  then  of  flesh  and 
blood  is  the  resurrection  sacramenti  or  thing  sig- 
nified: and  the  virtus  sacramenti  or  remission  of 
sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  His  Passion  is  that 
which  is  given  through  the  resurrection;  and  the 
resurrection  is  the  effect,  how  produced  we  know 
not,  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine.  This  be- 
ing true,  it  follows  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  a 
sacrifice,  save  in  the  offering  of  self-dedication  and 
of  God's  creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  but  a  sacra- 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  225 

mental  Feast  upon  the  great  sacrifice  which  was 
once  for  all  offered  to  God  upon  the  altar  of  the 
Cross."  Evans  refers  to  the  significant  change 
of  grammatical  structure  in  11:18  from  this  bread 
to  "of  the  bread,  the  of  (EK)  by  position  em- 
phatic, seeming  to  denote,  precisely  as  in  ch.  xriy, 
the  mystical  ejects  of  the  bread  eaten.  These 
mystical  effects  then  are  the  veritable  Flesh  of  the 
glorified  Body,  that  living  Bread  from  heaven 
which  is  the  Flesh  of  Christ  (John  6:51),  of 
which  heavenly  Bread  the  earthly  bread  is  to  the 
faithful  receiver  in  esu  et  tisu  the  material  cause." 
.  .  .  "This  divine  flesh,  spiritually  eaten,  assimi- 
lates us  to  its  own  spiritual  substance,  just  as  on  the 
other  hand  we  assimilate  to  our  bodily  substance 
the  material  bread  physically  eaten."  He  says  of 
I  Cor.  11:16:  "the  natural  bread  after  consecra- 
tion being  not  only  the  symbol,  but  also  the  vehicle 
(in  effect)  of  Christ's  body  (in  essence).  How 
often  in  Scripture  is  the  natural  consecrated  to  be 
the  medium  of  the  supernatural.  And  there  is  al- 
ways a  congruity  and  meetness  of  correspondence 
between  the  outward  sign  and  the  inner  thing  sig- 
nified. How  the  sacramental  bread  becomes  in  its 
use  and  effects  the  body  of  Christ  is  a  thing  that 
passes  all  understanding:  the  manner  is  a  mystery 
— the  mode  is  a  depth  beyond  all  sounding." 
Concerning  the  nondiscernment  of  the  Body,  i.e., 


226  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

''not  spiritually  discerning  the  Body.  .  .  .  There 
are  two  discernlngs,  the  one  leading  to  the  other, 
( I )  of  the  inner  man  receiving,  (2)  of  the  inner 
gifts  received:  how  can  these  last  be  appropriated 
unless  there  be  a  corresponsive  appropriativeness, 
such  as  the  expectancy  of  faith  and  surrender  of 
the  will  unto  receptivity  of  spirit — all  fruits  of , 
moral  sifting." 

Christ  is  not  divided  In  the  sense  that  every 
communicant  does  not  share  in  the  entire  Christ, 
though  millions  may  commune  on  the  same  day 
and  at  the  same  hour.  We  cannot  and  we  need  not 
explain  how  these  things  can  be.  Of  the  countless 
millions  who  at  the  same  moment  are  sharers  of 
the  light  and  warmth  of  the  undivided  sun,  no  one 
stands  in  our  way  to  deprive  us  of  the  light.  The 
rays  come  to  us  direct  from  that  one  sun,  and 
warms  all  alike,  even  though  many  may  not  be 
able  clearly  to  explain  all  the  phenomena  of  the 
heavens.  The  fact  continues,  for  it  is  not  depen- 
dent upon  our  absolute  comprehension.  Christ 
says:  "Abide  In  me  and  I  will  abide  in  you." 
Stand  In  right  relation  to  the  sun  and  you  will  get 
its  light  and  warmth,  and  so*  with  reference  to 
Christ.  We  must  have  a  sympathetic-mental  atti- 
tude toward  Him;  we  must  believe  Him,  and  do 
what  He  commands  us  to  do  and  then  we  shall 
know  the  truth,  and  its  power.     When  He  says: 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  227 

"Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body,"  we  must  obey  His 
word,  and  believe  what  He  says  to  us. 

In  reference  to  I  Cor.  Headlam  says:  "Now, 
all  this  shows  us  clearly  the  reality  of  the  sacra- 
mental principle  in  the  early  Church.  No  perver- 
sion such  as  this  would  have  been  possible  had  the 
Sacraments  been  looked  upon  as  mere  symbols; 
and  if  that  had  been  St.  Paul's  teaching  he  would 
have  said  so,  in  contradistinction  to  the  false  teach- 
ing that  had  arisen.  Instead  he  bases  his  admoni- 
tion in  all  cases  on  the  real  spiritual  significance  of 
the  Sacrament.  It  is  because  in  the  Communion 
we  are  joined  with  the  Lord  that  we  must  avoid 
idolatry."  See  I  Cor.  x:i6-20.  What  St.  Paul 
means  is  that  just  as  in  all  sacrifices  or  sacrificial 
feasts,  whether  Jewish  or  Gentile,  the  worshipper 
believed  that  he  was  in  communion  with  his  God, 
so  in  this  Christian  sacrifice  the  worshipper  was 
united  with  Christ.  To  St.  Paul  there  was  nothing 
symbolical  about  it.  It  was  real.  It  is  very  prob- 
able that  the  metaphor  of  the  body,  as  applied  to 
the  Church,  rose  out  of  the  Eucharist.  ...  Of  the 
reality  of  sacramental  communion  there  was  to 
him  no  doubt." 

Sir  William  Ramsey  states  that:  "the  rite  was 
the  expression  of  the  firm  belief  and  knowledge 
that  the  Saviour  was  with  them,  and  that  the  bread 
and  wine  were  given  by  Him,  and  according  to  the 


228  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

oriental  mind  were  Himself.  .  .  .  The  Western 
mind  (which  can  rarely  attain  to  the  mystic  per- 
ception of  the  truth),  through  its  desire  to  give 
precision  and  definite  form  to  the  vague  and  mys- 
tic, is  always  prone  to  represent  and  misconceive 
oriental  thought;  and  thus  falls  into  the  error  of 
materializing  the  ideal  and  the  spiritual."  Expos. 
Times,  xxi,  536, 

Dr.  Chadwick,  Dean  of  Armaugh,  in  his  expo- 
sition of  the  bread  and  wine  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel 
says:  "But  bread  and  wine  do  not  express  an  in- 
definite Divine  help;  they  express  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ;  they  have  to  do  with  His  Hu- 
manity. We  must  beware  of  limiting  overmuch. 
At  the  Supper  He  said  not  'my  flesh,'  but  'my 
body,'  which  is  plainly  a  more  comprehensive  term. 
And  we  may  not  so  carnalize  the  Body  as  to  ex- 
clude the  Person  who  bestows  Himself.  Yet  is  all 
the  language  so  constructed  as  to  force  the  convic- 
tion upon  us  that  His  body  and  blood.  His  Hu- 
manity, is  the  special  gift  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
As  man  He  redeemed  us,  and  as  man  He  imparts 
Himself  to  man."  How  well  does  such  a  doctrine 
of  the  sacrament  harmonize  with  the  declaration 
of  St.  Paul :  "I  live,  and  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me."    p.  382. 

In  section  XXXVI-XXXVIII  of  the  Galilean 
Confession,   originally  prepared  by  Calvin,   but 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  229 

later  revised  and  adopted  by  all  the  Reformed 
Churches,  including  the  Church  of  England,  we 
find  some  very  positive  and  explicit  statements  that 
rival  in  materialistic  literalism  some  of  the  most 
pronounced  expressions  of  confessional  Lutheran- 
ism.  "We  confess  that  the  Lord's  Supper  which 
is  the  second  sacrament,  is  a  witness  of  the  union 
which  we  have  with  Christ,  inasmuch  as  He  not 
only  died  and  rose  again  for  us  once,  but  also  feeds 
and  nourishes  us  truly  with  His  flesh  and  blood. 
By  the  secret  and  incomprehensible  power  of  His 
spirit  He  feeds  and  strengthens  us  with  the  sub- 
stance of  His  body  and  His  blood.  We  hold  that 
this  is  done  spiritually,  not  because  we  put  Imagina- 
tion and  fancy  in  the  place  of  fact  and  truth,  but 
because  the  greatness  of  this  mystery  exceeds  the 
measure  of  our  senses  and  the  laws  of  nature.  In 
short  because  it  is  heavenly,  it  can  only  be  appre- 
hended by  faith." 

"We  believe  that  In  the  Lord's  Supper,  God 
gives  us  really  and  in  fact  that  which  He  there  sets 
forth  to  us;  and  that  consequently,  with  these 
signs  is  given  the  true  possession  and  enjoyment 
of  that  which  they  present  to  us.  For  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  give  food  and  drink  to  the 
soul,  no  less  than  bread  and  wine  nourish  the 
body."  The  body  of  Christ  is  our  meat,  and  His 
blood  our  drink.     And  we  reject  the  Enthusiasts 


230  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

and  Sacramentarlans  who  will  not  receive  such 
signs  and  marks,  although  our  Saviour  said:  "This 
is  my  body,  and  this  is  my  blood."  (Schaff's 
Creeds  of  Christendom,  III,  381.) 

The  Christian  Churches  have  no  controversy 
as  to  the  words  of  the  Institution,  however  they 
may  differ  as  to  their  meaning,  for  all  accept  as  au- 
thoritative the  words  contained  in  St.  Matthew,  St. 
Mark,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  Paul's  I  Cor.  But  the 
interpretation  of  Christ's  words:  "This  is  my 
body"  has  constituted  the  source  of  much  contro- 
versy, and  at  times  of  such  an  acrimonious  charac- 
ter that  all  must  deplore  it  as  being  utterly  out  of 
harmony  with  the  divine  purport  of  this  holy  ordi- 
nance in  which  Christ  would  have  believers  com- 
mune with  Him  and  with  one  another  In  the  spirit 
of  love. 

The  Lutheran  church  believes  and  teaches  the 
real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  In  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  that  It  is  received  In  a  heavenly  and 
spiritual  manner  by  the  faith  of  the  communicant. 
We  are  not  disturbed  by  the  mysteries  Involved  in 
this  rite,  nor  by  the  unanswerable  questions  that 
may  be  asked,  for  we  are  not  called  upon  by  any 
divine  authority  to  make  these  things  plain,  either 
to  ourselves  or  to  others.  What  concerns  us  most 
Is  to  go  back  In  our  minds  to  the  night  of  the  In- 
stitution so  that  we  may  see  Christ  In  our  mind's 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  231 

eye,  and  feel  the  power  of  His  presence  In  our 
heart  as  we  endeavor  to  visualize  the  circumstances 
connected  with  that  memorable  hour  in  which  He 
was  betrayed,  when  He  celebrated  this  Last  Sup- 
per with  His  disciples.  We  place  our  emphasis 
upon  Christ  and  His  own  words,  rather  than  con- 
fusing our  minds  with  the  thoughts  of  controver- 
sies that  have  been  waged  by  various  branches  of 
the  Church,  dividing  them  more  widely  asunder 
instead  of  bringing  them  more  closely  together  in 
the  spirit  of  our  Lord  and  Master  who  prayed 
that  we  might  be  one.  After  all,  it  is  not  so  much 
the  philosophy  or  metaphysics  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussions as  to  just  how  Christ  is  present  in  the  ele- 
ments of  the  bread  and  wine,  for  we  need  not 
know  the  unknowable,  but  it  is  the  fact  of  Christ's 
presence,  and  our  believing  it,  or  as  St.  Paul  says: 
"discerning  the  Lord's  body"  in  this  holy  Com- 
munion. This  is  of  supreme  and  fundamental  im- 
portance, but  the  faithful  communicant  is  not 
called  upon  first  to  explain  the  language,  but  to 
come  in  faithful  and  loving  obedience — taking 
Christ  at  His  word.  Whilst  we  are  enjoined  to 
"be  ready  always  to  give  answer  to  every  man  that 
asketh  you  a  reason  concerning  the  hope  that  is  in 
you,"  that  does  not  mean  that  we  must  answer  all 
the  doubts,  unbelief  and  questions  that  others  may 
ask  us.     Often  the  objector  is  responsible  for  his 


232  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

greatest  difficulties  because  of  false  conceptions 
that  he  may  entertain  respecting  the  being  of  God 
and  His  relation  to  man,  as  well  as  his  inadequate 
estimate  of  the  real  nature  of  man  as  God's  own 
offspring,  and  man's  consequent  intimate  relation 
to  God.  We  must  not  think  of  man  as  nothing  but 
a  "poor,  miserable,  groveling  worm  of  the  dust," 
as  some  have  characterized  him  in  their  moments 
of  extreme  humility,  or  desperation,  for  man  was 
created  in  God's  own  image,  and  for  fellowship 
with  his  Creator.  The  real  man  is  the  inner-hid- 
den man  of  the  heart;  he  is  as  unseen  as  God  him- 
self, and  this  is  the  man  that  communes  with  Christ 
and  Christ  with  him. 

What  is  of  supreme  importance  then  in  the  Holy 
Communion  is  that  we  recognize  the  presence  of 
Christ,  the  God-man,  who  says  to  us  in  His  own 
words:  "Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body."  There  can 
be  no  Communion  without  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  He  must  be  present  as  well  as  His  words. 
We  must  hear  Him  say  to  us:  "Take,  eat;  this  is 
my  body."  His  sacramental  presence  we  must 
desire  and  recognize  in  this  spiritual  feast  for 
nothing  less  can  satisfy  the  soul.  He  ministers  to 
us  through  the  bread  broken,  and  the  poured  out 
wine,  giving  us  His  Body  and  His  Blood  in  this 
Sacrament,  though  in  a  heavenly  and  spiritual 
manner,  but  none  the  less  real.    We  may  not  al- 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  233 

ways  enjoy  that  Intense  consciousness  of  fellow- 
ship with  Christ  that  we  so  ardently  desire  In  this 
Holy  Communion,  but  this  must  not  disturb  our 
faith  and  fidelity,  as  though  our  consciousness  were 
the  full  measure  of  our  warrant  for  faith  In  the 
sacramental  Presence  itself.  After  all  It  Is  not  the 
standard  of  our  feelings,  the  emotions  stirred  with- 
in us  upon  which  we  rely  for  our  salvation,  but 
solely  upon  the  merits  and  the  love  of  Christ  pre- 
sented to  us  In  this  Sacrament.  Hence,  Instead  of 
regarding  our  feelings,  and  our  own  worthiness, 
we  should  come  with  repentance,  and  faith  In 
God's  love  as  seen  In  Christ  on  the  cross. 

We  come  in  loving  trust,  and  with  Christ's  as- 
surance of  His  Presence  and  blessing  whatever  our 
feelings  may  be.  Mere  emotions  do  not  save  the 
sinner,  but  Christ's  sufferings  and  death,  and  His 
words  are  our  surety. 

The  Lutheran  church  Is  not  alone  In  its  doctrine 
as  to  the  real  presence  of  the  Body  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  for  Bishop  W.  W.  How  of  the  Church 
of  England  wrote:  "We  hold  that  Christ  really 
gives  His  Body  and  Blood  to  the  faithful,  who  do 
really  receive  the  same,  and  are  thereby  spiritually 
nourished  and  strengthened.  How  this  is  we  know 
not,  nor  would  we  curiously  enquire.  Thus  while 
we  shrink  from  the  awful  doctrine  of  a  carnal  par- 
taking of  Christ,  we  believe  In  a  real  partaking  of 


234  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Christ.  We  do  not  say  that  the  Holy  Sacrament 
is  only  a  means  whereby  we  approach  Christ,  so 
as  spiritually  to  feed  upon  Him  by  faith.  We 
rather  say  it  is  a  means  whereby  Christ  approaches 
us,  and  communicates  Himself  to  us  as  our  spirit- 
ual food  and  sustenance.  Moreover  that  He  is 
truly  present  in  His  holy  Sacrament  we  most  surely 
believe." 

We  cannot  fathom,  much  less  explain  the  pro-' 
found-divine  mystery,  though  convirfcced  of  its 
truth  because  of  Christ's  teaching  in  the  Divine 
Word,  and  our  deepest  religious  convictions  agree- 
ing therewith — in  harmony  with  millions  of  others 
through  the  Christian  centuries.  As  the  learned 
Hooker  wrote  and  felt,  so  we  come,  for:  "What 
these  elements  are  in  themselves  it  skilleth  not. 
It  is  enough  that  unto  me  which  take  them  they  are 
the  Body  and  the  Blood  of  Christ.  His  promise 
in  witness  hereof  sufficeth.  His  word  He  knoweth 
which  way  to  accomplish.  Why  should  any  cogita- 
tion possess  the  mind  of  a  faithful  communicant 
but  this :  O  my  God,  Thou  art  true :  O  my  soul, 
thou  art  happy."  There  is  also  much  wisdom  in 
the  quaint  lines  attributed  to  Queen  Elizabeth: 

"Christ  was  the  word  that  spake  it: 
He  took  the  bread  and  brake  it; 
And  what  that  Word  did  make  it. 
That  I  believe,  and  take  it." 


The  Analogy  of  faith  235 

We  must  hold  to  the  supreme  and  incontrovert- 
ible fact  of  the  real  presence  of  the  Body  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  for  His  own  words  affirm 
this  in  the  most  positive  language.  "This  is  my 
body."  Hence,  the  only  question  can  be  as  to  the 
mode  of  His  presence.  The  language  contains  a 
direct,  categorical  statement,  without  any  qualifica- 
tion, or  the  remotest  suggestion  that  He  meant 
less  than  He  said.  He  knew  the  natural  meaning 
of  the  language  he  employed,  and  what  it  would 
naturally  mean  to  the  disciples,  and  had  he  meant 
that  the  sacramental  bread  was  merely  a  memorial 
and  nothing  more,  then  He  would  have  told  them 
so,  and  He  would  not  have  made  use  of  such  ab- 
solute language:     "This  is  my  body." 

As  to  the  exact  meaning  that  Christ  attached 
to  these  words  there  has  been  much  difference  of 
opinion,  but  the  amplification  given  by  the  Apostle 
Paul  serves  as  an  invaluable  commentary  from  an 
intelligent  contemporary,  as  well  as  from  the  great 
Apostle  himself  who  knew  the  mind  of  Christ. 
We  are  interested  In  knowing  what  St.  Paul  re- 
garded as  the  true  interpretation  of  these  words, 
and  elsewhere  I  have  devoted  considerable  space 
to  an  earnest  consideration  of  this  phase  of  the 
study  of  our  subject,  In  Its  various  bearings  from 
the  study  of  contemporary  pagan  feats,  and  some 
ancient  monuments. 

In  seeking  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  Insti- 


236  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

tution  we  must  ever  keep  in  mind  the  true  Person 
of  Christ  who  instituted  the  Last  Supper — in 
whom  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bod- 
ily, who  In  the  consciousness  of  His  divine  being 
as  the  God-man,  to  whom  "all  authority  hath 
been  given  in  heaven  and  on  earth,"  commanded 
His  disciples  to  "Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  command- 
ed you :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world,"  He  gave  them  the  new 
covenant  in  His  blood  that  was  to  supersede  the 
old  Jewish  covenant,  for  Christ  our  Passover — 
as  the  Paschal  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world  was  sacrificed  for  us.  All  this, 
and  nothing  less  we  must  see  when  Jesus  cele- 
brated that  Last  Supper  with  His  disciples,  for 
this  alone  has  given  it  that  central  place  in  the 
Church,  and  made  it  so  precious  to  beUevers. 
Christ  foresaw  it  all,  for  He  had  the  future  gen- 
erations before  Him.  He  saw  the  infant-strug- 
gling Church  that  would  observe  this  sacred  ordi- 
nance, and  realize  precious  fellowship  with  Him 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  that  would  prove  so  helpful 
to  them.  His  presence  in  the  Eucharist  was  real, 
as  well  as  His  Indwelling,  and  not  a  mere  prom- 
ise, but  it  became  a  divine  and  effective  reality 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  237 

that  made  them  bold,  and  mighty — with  the  world 
against  them.  Because  the  nature  of  that  Pres- 
ence was  a  profound  mystery  did  not  disturb  their 
faith,  for  it  was  the  fact  of  Christ's  real  presence 
that  they  believed  because  of  His  own  words,  and 
because  He  was  with  them  in  power,  and  there- 
fore it  became  the  guarantee  of  His  presence.  To 
them  the  Eucharist  was  indeed  "the  new  covenant 
in  His  blood,"  and  with  that  objective  witness  or 
testimony  they  could  not  doubt  their  Lord  and 
Master. 

Gould  in  his  Commentary  on  Mark  says :  As 
to  the  meaning  of  the  words:  this  is  my  body,  "it 
is  enough  to  say  that  any  insistence  on  their  literal 
meaning  is  entirely  contrary  to  linguistic  laws  and 
usage."  We  have  in  this  very  connection  an  in- 
stance or  example  "that  evidently  disproves  the 
literal  meaning,  not  merely  establishing  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  symbolic  use  here,  but  making  the 
literal  meaning  impossible,  viz.,  'This  cup  is  the 
new  covenant  in  my  blood.'  No  one  would  con- 
tend for  the  literalness  of  the  language  in  this 
case,  and  yet  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  copula 
is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  both  cases,  and  hence 
the  bread  could  be  no  more  literally  flesh,  than 
the  cup  could  be  literally  a  covenant.  The  spiritual 
character  of  the  religion  that  Christ  taught  would 
be  at  variance  with  such  a  material  conception 


238  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

that  the  literal  meaning  would  indicate."  But, 
says  Gould:  "One  more  element  needs  to  be  con- 
sidered in  estimating  the  meaning  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  our  Lord.  The 
bread  and  wine  were  to  be  eaten  and  drunk.  The 
meaning  is  thus  a  partaking  of  the  Lord,  the  feed- 
ing of  our  spirit  with  the  cnacified  Jesus.  That  is 
to  say,  it  is  Jesus  our  life,  rather  than  the  ex- 
ternally atoning  aspect  of  his  death,  that  is  im- 
parted to  us  in  the  Sacrament."  Plummer  in  his 
Commentary  on  Matthew  concludes  that  whilst 
the  meaning  will  perhaps  always  be  disputed  "all 
that  is  necessary  is  that  the  Christian  should  be 
assured  that  whoever  worthily  partakes  of  the 
Holy  Communion  really  partakes  of  Christ." 
Blunt  in  Key  to  the  Prayer  Book  says:  "After 
the  celebrant  has  administered  'the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ'  to  himself,  he  delivers  them  to  the 
Bishops,  Priests,  etc.  In  recognizing  the  real 
Presence  of  our  Lord  each  communicant  is  sep- 
arately reminded  that  what  he  receives  is  'The 
Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ'.  .  . 
so  that  no  excuse  is  left  for  ignorant  unbelief." 
p.  6^.  Canon  Gore  says:  "The  belief  of  the 
Church  in  an  objective  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
sacramentally  identified  with  the  bread  and  wine 
— has  been  due  to  our  Lord's  language,  reinforced 
by    St.    Paul's,    in    the    Institution."  .  .  .  "The 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  239 

spiritual,  in  the  New  Testament,  means  not  what 
is  separated  from  the  material  or  bodily,  but  that 
in  which  the  spirit  rules,  or  that  which  expresses 
a  spiritual  meaning."  Wescott  states:  "Now  it 
is  easy  to  say  that  eating  the  flesh  of  Christ,  is  a 
figurative  way  of  describing  faith  in  Christ.  But 
such  a  method  of  dealing  with  the  words  of  Holy 
Scripture  is  really  to  empty  them  of  their  divine 
force.  This  spiritual  eating,  this  feeding  upon 
Christ,  is  the  best  result  of  faith,  the  highest  en- 
ergy for  faith,  but  it  is  not  faith  itself.  To  eat 
is  to  take  that  into  ourselves  which  we  can  as- 
similate as  the  support  of  life.  The  phrase  'to 
eat  the  flesh  of  Christ'  expresses  therefore,  as  per- 
haps no  other  language  could  express,  the  great 
truth  that  Christians  are  made  partakers  of  the 
human  nature  of  their  Lord  which  is  united  in  one 
person  to  the  divine  nature,  that  He  imparts  to 
us  now,  and  that  we  can  receive  into  our  man- 
hood, something  of  His  manhood,  which  may  be 
the  seed,  so  to  speak,  of  the  glorified  bodies  in 
which  we  shall  be  hereafter,  and  behold  Him." 
This  is  because  of  our  realized  relationsip  with 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist  in  which  He  communi- 
cates Himself  to  us.  "Because  I  live,  ye  shall 
live  also,"  is  His  precious  assurance  of  our  im- 
mortal life. 

The    Greek   Professor   Evans   In   his    learned 


240  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

notes  states  that:  "The  much  controverted  'is' 
means  precisely  is.  It  can  never  mean,  as  many 
signifies  or  represents,  nor  can  it  combine,  as  some, 
both  senses  is  and  signifies.  It  is  the  copula  pure 
and  simple,  the  link  of  correlation  between  the 
subject  this  and  the  predicate  my  body.  In  gen- 
eral this  correlation  is  one  of  identity,  but  iden- 
tity of  what  kind  or  to  what  degree  lies  not  in 
the  copula  to  determine  but  solely  in  the  content, 
i.e.,  in  the  character  of  the  surroundings  and  also 
in  the  nature  of  the  case.  In  the  text  I  am  the 
vine  the  am  is  am  simply,  and  the  vine  is  a  mental 
figure.  In  this  phrase  I  am  the  vine — the  identity 
between  subject  and  predicate  is  limited  to  cer- 
tain properties  of  mutual  immanence  and  conse- 
quently fruitfulness  which  are  absolutely  common 
to  Christ  Himself  who  is  seen  with  the  eye  of  the 
body  and  to  the  natural  vine  as  contemplated  with 
the  mind's  eye  .  .  .  But  the  sentence :  This  is 
my  body  has  really  no  analogy  whatsoever  to  the 
text  /  am  the  vine  or  These  are  the  covenants,  as 
many  assert:  this  is  evident  from  the  nature  of 
the  case :  it  clearly  belongs  to  that  class  of  pas- 
sages in  which  the  copula  links  together  sub- 
ject and  predicate  not  merely  as  identical  more 
or  less,  but  chiefly  as  correlated  in  the  way  of 
cause  and  efect.  Such  passages  are  numerous  In 
St.  Paul:  one  may  suffice  from  Rom.  8:10,  the 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  241 

Spirit  is  life,  i.e.,  the  principle  of  life,  as  cause, 
is  energy  or  activity  of  life  as  effect.     Similarly 
in  the  text  before  us,  there  is  no  identity  indeed, 
but  there   is  a   certain  congruity  between   God's 
lesser  ffood  or   gift   of  bread  and  God's   inesti- 
mable good  or  gift  of  the  Body,  given  by  Him 
and  self-given  by  Christ;  for  from  the  earth  born 
food  comes  natural  nourishment,  from  the  heav- 
enly spiritual;  and  there  is  beside  this  congruity 
a  correlation  also  of  cause  and  effect.     So  that 
the  meaning  seems  to  be:  This   (in  effect)   is  my 
body:  hozv  such  instrumental  cause  produces  such 
effect,  is  to  us  unknown  ...  In  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per the  bread  taken  and  eaten  is  in  the  mystical 
effects  thereof  the  Body  really  received,  not  'par- 
taken  of,'   but  as  Augustine   says   corpus   accep- 
tum  .  .   .     The  dogma  of  transubstantiation  is  a 
baseless  fabric,  apparently  founded  in  part  upon 
ignorance   of   linguistic  usage."      "In  the^  Holy 
Supper  ...  the  bread  and  wine  after  their  ben- 
ediction or  consecration  are  not  indeed  changed 
in  their  nature,  but  become  in  their  use  and  in 
their  effects  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
This  of  course,  to  the  worthy  receiver  .    .    .  The 
natural  bread  after  consecration  being  not  only  the 
symbol,  but  also  the  vehicle  (in  effect)  of  Christ^s 
body    (in  essence).     How  often  in  Scripture  is 
the  natural  consecrated  to  be  the  medium  of  the 


242  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

supernatural.  And  there  is  always  a  congruity  and 
meetness  of  correspondence  between  the  outward 
sign  and  the  inner  thing  signified." 

Inasmuch  as  the  words  of  Christ  do  not  neces- 
sarily affirm  that  He  meant  absolutely  to  identify 
the  bread  and  wine  before  Him  in  that  Last  Sup- 
per with  His  own  body,  and  because  of  the  un- 
fathomable mystery  involved  in  the  remarkable 
language  used,  as  the  greatest  minds  that  have 
attempted  a  solution  of  the  words  of  the  Institu- 
tion, freely  acknowledge;  and  because  of  the  utter 
absence  of  any  explanatory  words  connected 
therewith,  as  well  as  any  recorded  questions  on 
the  part  of  the  disciples  who  heard  them — that 
He  would  further  explain  the  incomprehensible 
language,  as  when  on  a  previous  occasion  they 
said  to  Him:  "Explain  to  us  the  parable  of  the 
Tares;" — it  would  seem  that  they  must  have 
asked  for  some  explanation  of  this  profoundly 
mysterious  language.  Unless  at  some  previous 
time  He  had  delivered  to  them,  either  in  public 
or  in  private,  a  discourse  calculated  to  prepare 
their  minds  to  receive,  and  understand  the  pur- 
port of  the  words  in  question,  for  otherwise  it 
would  have  been  as  startling,  if  not  as  mysterious 
as  a  bolt  out  of  a  clear  sky.  It  is  true  that  Christ 
had  often  used  figurative  language  before  this, 
but  never  of  that  strange  character — with  but  one 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  243 

exception,  and  that  was  the  memorable  discourse 
at  Capernaum,  when  a  number  of  the  disciples  took 
serious  offence  at  the  language  used,  for  they 
could  not  endure  it,  and  they  turned  away  from 
Him. 

Hence  because  of  the  unique  character  of  that 
discourse  recorded  in  John  VI,  it  is  only  natural 
to  recognize  some  words  in  common  with  those 
spoken  in  the  Last  Supper,  even  though  it  may 
not  have  borne  any  direct  reference  to  it.  How- 
ever, some  such  previous  instruction  it  would  seem 
was  necessary  to  prepare  them  for  the  reception 
of  the  remarkable  truths  connected  with  this  sa- 
cred ordinance  that  has  been  the  most  holy  and 
impressive  rite  of  the  Christian  Church  through 
the  centuries.  Whatever  the  relation  of  the  two, 
the  points  of  contact  and  resemblances  are  of 
such  a  striking  character  that  they  must  at  least 
be  reckoned  with,  even  though  that  memorable 
discourse  did  not  have  in  fact,  as  no  one  knows, 
any  direct  reference,  when  spoken,  to  the  Last 
Supper.  On  that  occasion,  Jesus  saw  that  some 
were  offended  at  His  sayings — touching  the  deep 
mysteries  of  God,  and  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh;  for  He  declared:  "I  am 
the  bread  of  life  ...  I  am  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven:  if  any  man  eat 
of  this  bread,  he  shall  eat  forever:  yea  and  the 


244  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

bread  which  I  shall  give  is  my  flesh,  for  the  life 
of  the  world.  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you.  Ex- 
cept ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink. 
His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  yourselves.  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath 
eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day  .  .  .  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  He  that  eateth 
me,  he  also  shall  live  because  of  me  .  .  .  It  is  the 
spirit  that  giveth  life;  the  flesh  proliteth  nothing: 
the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit, 
and  are  life."    6:48-63. 

We  are  told  that  many  disciples  murmured  at 
this  teaching,  and  said:  "This  is  a  hard  saying: 
who  can  hear  it?  They  went  back  and  walked 
no  more  with  Him."  Then  said  Jesus  unto  the 
twelve:  "Would  ye  also  go  away?  Simon  Peter 
answered  Him,  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go?  Thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  That  confession 
of  Peter  shows  the  depth  of  his  conviction,  and 
the  profound  impression  that  Christ  had  made 
upon  him;  and  his  subsequent  life  of  sacrificing  de- 
votion, with  the  solitary  exception  at  the  trial  of 
Jesus,  is  the  unquestioned  confirmation  of  his  sin- 
cerity. Christ's  discourse  had  reached  the  depths 
of  his  soul,  and  completely  mastered  him  with 
faith  in  Christ  and  the  eternal.  That  message  did 
not  offend  Peter,  nor  was  it  wholly  incomprehen- 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  245 

sible  to  him,  for  he  saw  the  greatness  of  Christ 
emphasized,  and  hence  he  added:  "And  we  have 
believed  and  know  that  thou  are  the  Holy  One 
of  God." 

Whilst  a  literal  interpretation  of  these  words 
is  not  admissible,  there  are  those  who  appeal  to 
this  strong  language  in  John  VI  for  their  inter- 
pretation of  the  words  of  the  Institution  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.     But  at  most  these  words  cannot 
be  taken  literally  as  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking 
the  blood  of  Christ;  it  was  not  a  hteral-carnal 
eating  and  drinking.     Plummer  holds  that  "it  is 
incredible  that  this  momentous  act  in  the  work  of 
redemption  had  not  been  thought   out  by   Him 
when   He   spoke   at   Capernaum  ...  the   corre- 
spondences between  the  language  used,  and  the  ac- 
counts of  the  institution — cannot  be  fortuitous  .  .  ." 
A  special  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is  clear 
from  the  words  used  about  eating  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  drinking  His  blood,  and  from 
the  fact  that  just  a  year  after  this  discourse  Christ 
instituted  the   Eucharist.      Whatever  application 
the  disciples  may  have  made  of  that  discourse  I 
know  not,  but  they  must  have  recalled  them  when 
Christ  said:     "Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body,"  for 
the   law   of   association   would   have  brought  to 
their   minds   the    saying    of    the    offended    ones: 
"How  can  this  man  give  us  His  flesh  to  eat?" 


246  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

In  order  fully  to  appreciate  the  words  of  In- 
stitution, and  realize  the  true  character  of  this 
holy  ordinance — we  must  recognize  continually 
that  He  who  ordained  this  Sacrament  was  God- 
manifest  in  the  flesh.  They  are  ever  His  words 
though  repeated  by  His  ambassadors,  and  though 
the  elements  remain  bread  and  wine,  in  this  con- 
secration they  become  the  sacramental  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  to  the  faithful  communicant,  even 
though  he  may  not  be  able  to  give  the  interpreta- 
tion thereof,  but  he  must  recognize  the  Christ, 
the  God-man  present  in  that  holy  ordinance. 

There  are  too  many  eminent  scholars  who  be- 
lieve in  a  more  or  less  intimate  relation  of  the  dis- 
course of  Johh  6  to  the  Last  Supper  to  justify  us 
in  ignoring  it  without  a  passing  notice  when  dis- 
cussing the  Eucharist.  Whatever  the  position  of 
our  Church  may  have  been  respecting  this  ques- 
tion we  must  give  due  consideration  to  what  has 
been  said  by  other  Christian  scholars.  Every 
thoughtful  student  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  must 
often  have  wondered  why  the  writer  was  silent 
respecting  this  central  rite  in  the  Church;  if  he 
has  really  been  silent.  There  must  be  a  sufficient 
reason  for  such  a  remarkable  omission  from  his 
narrative,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  for 
many  years  before  he  wrote  the  Gospel  he  must 
have  been  familiar  with  the  universal  observance 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  247 

of  this  Holy  Sacrament  wherever  the  Church  ex- 
isted. But  Sir  Ramsay  holds  to  the  theory  that 
"St.  John  describes  the  Last  Supper  without 
mentioning  the  incident  of  the  Bread  and  Wine; 
he  places  similar  teaching  as  to  the  partaking  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  at  a  much  earlier 
stage  in  the  Saviour's  career  (6:31,  xc).  St. 
Paul  and  the  Synoptists  describe  the  incident  of 
the  Bread  and  Wine  as  occurring  at  the  Last 
Supper,  and  as  being  the  origin  of  the  Eucha- 
ristic  ceremony  in  the  observance  of  the  Church. 
St.  John  seems  to  imply  that  the  Saviour's  teach- 
ing at  an  earlier  time  was  a  sufficient  cause  and 
origin  of  the  ceremony." 

"This  omission  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  remark- 
able and  beyond  all  question  intentional.  Our 
theory  is  that  the  error  of  the  Synoptists  and  the 
omission  by  John  are  connected.  John  said 
nothing  about  the  rite  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  at 
the  Last  Supper,  because  an  erroneous  interpreta- 
tion of  the  meaning  and  importance  of  that  In- 
cident had  gained  currency  and  had  led  to  the 
errror  made  by  Mark,  and  reproduced  after  him 
by  Matthew  and  Luke  .  .  .  The  fact  that  the 
doctrine  and  principle  of  the  Eucharist  already 
existed  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  at  a  much  earlier 
time,  and  was  expressed  in  His  practice,  does  not 
necessarily  throw  any  doubt  on  His  formal  in- 


248  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

stitutions  of  the  Sacrament  on  the  night  before 
His  death.  The  testimony  of  Paul  (I  Cor.  10:11) 
is  quite  clear  and  definite  on  this  point;  and  may 
be  regarded  as  final.  There  is  no  difliculty  and 
no  inconsistency  in  the  two  positions.  Jesus  taught 
the  doctrine  during  His  life  (though  like  much 
of  His  teaching  it  was  not  understood  by  the  dis- 
ciples), and  gave  some  marked  significance  to  the 
act  of  breaking  and  distributing  the  Bread  in  His 
daily  life;  on  the  last  night  He  enjoined  on  the 
Twelve  to  repeat  the  act  in  His  memory.  Both 
are  true.  It  is  not  a  case  where  we  are  to  choose 
between  one  and  the  other.  One  thing,  however, 
follows  inevitably  from  this  previously  existing 
germ  of  the  Eucharist.  That  which  was  institu- 
ted was  not  a  mere  commemoration  of  the  death 
of  the  Saviour;  it  had  no  analogy  nor  connexion 
with  a  death  feast,  which  was  usually  an  annual 
one.  It  was  the  expression  of  a  truth,  of  a  vital 
principle,  which  had  been  part  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  long  before  .  .  .  The  doctrine  of  the  Eu- 
charist is  not  omitted.  It  is  stated  elswhere.  The 
occasion  on  which  John  records  the  exposition  of 
the  mystic  truth  that  is  expressed  in  the  Rite  is 
Important,  and  was  certainly  selected  by  him  of 
set  purpose  (ch.  6)  .  .  .  John's  account  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Master  regarding  the  mystic  truth 
which   was   afterwards   embodied   in   the   Sacra- 


The  Analogy   of  Faith  249 

merit   is   contained   in  his   6th  chapter  ...      In 
this  discourse  the  gradual  transition  is  clearly  in- 
dicated from  the  simpler  idea  'bread'  through  the 
stages  'bread  from  heaven,'  and  'I  am  the  bread 
of  life,'  to  the  mystic  saying  'he  that  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  abldeth  in  me,  and 
I  in  him  ...  he  that  eateth  me,  he  shall  live  be- 
cause of  me.'  But  'it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth; 
the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.'    .    .    .   We  must  no- 
tice also  that  John  explains  why  this  earlier  teach- 
ing had  passed  unobserved  and  unrecorded.     It 
was  beyond  the  comprehension  of  the  disciples. 
Many  of  them  even  said,  "This  Is  a  hard  saying." 
I  have  quoted  at  length  from  the  Expository 
Times  the  theory  of  this  eminent  Christian  scholar 
to    solve    a    perplexing    problem.      We    are   not 
obliged  to   accept  it,   but   In  merely  rejecting  it 
without  offering  a  more  reasonable  one  we  do  not 
escape  the  difficulty;  that  remains,  and  we  must 
not  be  satisfied  without  some   solution,   for  evi- 
dently there  is  a  reason  why  the  Gospel  of  John 
contains  no  formal  account  of  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  clearly  given  by  the  Syn- 
optists  and  Paul.     We  learn  from  John  6  that 
the   startling  words  of  Jesus  were   confounding 
to  His  hearers,  and  unable  to  Interpret  them  they 
murmured   among  themselves :      "How   can  this 
man  give  us  His  flesh  to  eat?"    Jesus  did  not  ex- 


250  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

plain  the  "how,"  but  emphasized  the  necessity  of 
the  fact:  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man  and  drink  His  blood  ye  have  not  life  in 
yourself."  Though  men  may  deny  that  this  dis- 
course has  anything  to  do  with  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  (though  it  expresses  it  in  the 
concrete),  it  is  evident  that  it  contains  the  doc- 
trine of  that  Sacrament,  which  is  the  outward  or 
visible  embodiment  of  the  doctrine  here  taught, 
and  to  the  believing  partaker  there  is  a  real  par- 
ticipation of  His  flesh  and  blood.  The  transcend- 
ent claims  of  Jesus  can  only  be  conceivable  in  con- 
nexion with  His  divine  origin.  He  asserts  His 
own  life-giving  power  as  the  living  bread  that 
came  down  from  heaven;  the  living  source  of  that 
bread  being  in  His  own  person,  and  imparting  the 
spirit  and  eternal  life  of  all  who  accept  Him.  It  is 
Christ's  body  sacrificed  on  the  cross  for  us  that 
is  to  be  given  to  behevers  in  Him  to  nourish  their 
soul  unto  eternal  life.  The  Incarnation  was  a 
necessity,  and  so  was  the  Crucifixion  of  His  body. 
It  is  the  glorified  body  with  which  we  have  to  do; 
it  is  the  sacramental  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
that  we  receive  in  the  Holy  Communion,  and  thus 
we  sacramentally  feed  upon  Christ.  This  must 
be  our  answer  to  them  who  ask:  "How  can  these 
things  be?"     The  word  flesh  in  this  connexion 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  251 

would  seem  to  denote  human  nature  on  its  earthly 
side. 

Ramsay  holds  that  "St.  Paul  is  in  essential 
agreement  with  the  Fourth  Gospel  (6:31-59)  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  Sacrament;  that  the  life-giv- 
ing bread  is  Christ,  and  that  life  can  be  had  only 
through  eating  that  bread.  When  he  draws  the 
parallel  between  the  sacrificial  meal  which  was 
the  force  binding  together  the  pagan  society  as 
the  communion  of  Daemonic  Powers,  and  the  eat- 
ing of  the  Eucharistic  meal  which  was  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  then  shortly 
afterwards  quotes  the  Saviour's  own  words,  'this 
is  my  body,'  it  seems  irrational  to  doubt  that  he 
is  expressing  the  view  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  .  .  . 
John  would  hardly  have  laid  such  stress  on  the 
sensuous  facts  of  eating  and  drinking,  unless  he 
had  the  Sacrament  in  mind  when  he  wrote  .  .  . 
He  only  explained  the  mystic  doctrine  that  every 
one  who  rightly  partakes  of  this  food  from  heaven 
becomes  united  with  and  merged  in  the  Saviour's 
personality." 

Wescott,  commenting  on  this  discourse,  says 
that:  "The  remarkable  succession  of  phrases  can- 
not refer  primarily  to  the  Holy  Communion;  nor 
again  can  it  be  simply  prophetic  of  that  Saca- 
ment  ...     It  treats  essentially  of  spiritual  reali- 


252  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ties  with  which  no  external  act,  as  such  can  be 
coextensive.  The  well-known  words  of  Augustine, 
'crede  et  manducati,'  believe  and  thou  hast  eaten, 
give  the  sum  of  the  thoughts  in  a  luminous  and 
pregnant  sentence.  But  on  the  other  hand,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  truth  which  is  presented 
in  its  absolute  form  in  these  discourses  is  pre- 
sented in  a  specific  act  and  in  a  concrete  form  in 
the  Holy  Communion;  and  yet  further  that  the 
Holy  Communion  is  the  divinely  appointed  means 
whereby  men  may  realise  the  truth.  Nor  can 
there  be  a  difficulty  to  any  one  who  acknowl- 
edges a  divine  fitness  in  the  ordinances  of  the 
Church,  an  eternal  correspondence  in  the  parts 
of  the  one  counsel  of  God,  in  believing  that  the 
Lord,  while  speaking  intelligibly  to  those  who 
heard  Him  at  the  time,  gave  by  anticipation  a 
commentary,  so  to  speak,  on  the  Sacrament  which 
He  afterward  instituted.  But  that  which  He 
deals  with  Is  not  the  outward  rite,  but  the  spir- 
itual fact  which  underlies  it.  To  attempt  to  trans- 
fer the  words  of  the  discourse  with  their  conse- 
quences to  the  Sacrament  is  not  only  to  involve 
the  history  in  hopeless  confusion  but  to  introduce 
overwhelming  difficulties  into  their  interpreta- 
tion." 

"St.  John  living  in  the  centre  of  Christian  so- 
ciety does  not  notice  the  institution  of  services 


The  Analogy  of  Faith  253 

which  were  parts  of  the  settled  experience  of 
Church  life.  He  presupposes  them;  and  at  the 
same  time  records  the  discourses  in  which  the 
ideas  clothed  for  us  and  brought  near  to  us  in 
the  two  Sacraments  were  set  forth.  He  guards  the 
Sacraments  in  this  way  from  being  regarded 
either  as  ends  in  themselves  or  as  mere  sym- 
bols .  .  .  That  which  the  believer  must  appro- 
priate is,  the  virtue  of  Christ's  humanity;  through 
this,  in  the  unity  of  His  Person,  Christ  unites  him 
to  God.  That  which  Christ  offers  to  His  Church 
in  the  institution  of  Holy  Communion  is  His 
'Body.'  " 


VI 

Christ's  glorified  body  in  the  eucharist 

THE  seemingly  insuperable  difficulties  that 
arise  in  the  minds  of  some,  are  largely  due 
to  their  not  making  the  fundamental  distinction  be- 
tween Christ's  body  before  and  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  especially  previous  to  the  ascension,  for  It 
underwent  a  great  transformation.  But  the  per- 
sonality of  Christ  as  the  same  human  and  Divine 
One  continues  in  its  inseparable  oneness,  and  this 
too  is  fundamental  in  the  doctrine  of  His  presence 
in  the  Lord's  Supper.  We  must  not  try  to  sepa- 
rate the  Indivisible  One,  and  localize  the  human — 
far  away  from  earth, — high  and  lifted  up  on  a  ce- 
lestial throne  like  some  might  conceive  of  an  East- 
ern potentate,  for  such  a  mental  division  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  would  increase  the  difficulties, 
and  add  to  the  confusion  of  thought.  I  have  often 
felt  with  millions  of  others  the  full  effect  of  the 
rays  of  the  sun,  in  world-wide  travel,  though 
widely  separated,  and  on  different  continents,  and 
surely  the  Creator  is  greater  than  anything  that 
He  has  created,  and  we  must  not  apply  to  His  su- 

254 


Christ's   Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     255 

preme  powers  any  mechanical  limitations  as  to 
mode  of  Presence  and  manifestation  merely  be- 
cause we  cannot  comprehend  them.  He  still  works 
in  us  both  to  will  and  to  work  for  His  good  pleas- 
ure, and  He  has  not  withdrawn  Himself  from  the 
world  of  humanity,  but  He  continues  in  love  and 
power  on  earth,  even  as  He  declared  the  assurance 
of  His  continual  presence  to  His  disciples:  "Lo  I 
am  with  you  alway."  Not  afar  off  in  heaven;  too 
far  away  for  us  to  speak  to  Him  and  feel  the  per- 
sonal touch  of  His  power,  but  He  is  very  near,  as 
He  promised:  "Abide  in  me  and  I  in  you." 

That  "I"  expressed  the  oneness  of  His  Person 
as  the  God-man,  in  the  personal  Divine-human 
consciousness,  both  in  essence  or  nature.  As  Lid- 
don  states:  "The  perfect  Manhood  of  Christ,  not 
His  body  merely,  but  His  soul,  and  therefore  His 
human  will,  is  part  of  the  one  Christ."  The  Di- 
vine nature  must  have  taken  the  initiative  in  this 
union,  just  as  in  the  work  of  redemption."  Dr. 
Valentine  states  that  "the  attributes  of  both  the 
Divine  and  human  natures  truly  belong  to  the  One 
Person,  the  God-man;  and  that  in  the  redemptory 
work  this  One  Person  acts  through  each  of  the  two 
natures,  or  through  one  with  communication  of  the 
other."  He  quotes  the  Form  of  Concord  that: 
"The  two  natures  of  Christ  are  so  united  that 
they  are  not  mingled  one  with  another  or  changed 


256  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

one  into  the  other,  and  each  retains  its  natural,  es- 
sential property,  so  that  the  properties  of  one  na- 
ture never  become  the  properties  of  the  other  na- 
ture. .  .  .  Therefore  in  Christ  is  and  remains  only 
one  divine  omnipotence,  power,  majesty,  glory, 
which  is  peculiar  alone  to  the  divine  nature;  but  it 
shines,  manifests,  and  exercises  itself  fully  yet  vol- 
untarily, in,  with  and  through  the  assumed  exalted 
human  nature."  It  was  explained  that:  "The  es- 
sential attributes  of  the  one  nature,  which  are 
truly  and  rightly  ascribed  to  the  whole  Person, 
never  become  the  attributes  of  the  other  nature." 
Dr.  Valentine  further  states  that:  "if  we  remember 
this  fact,  that  no  transfusion  of  divine  properties 
into  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  meant,  but  only 
a  participation  by  the  human  in  the  action  of  the 
divine  through  the  unity  of  the  theanthropic  Per- 
son, the  difficulty  of  this  species  of  communication 
disappears.  There  is  a  clear  difference  between  a 
communication  or  communion  in  the  activities,  ex- 
ercises, glories,  and  prerogatives  of  the  divine  idio- 
mata,  in  and  through  the  One  Person,  and  the  sup- 
posed impartation  of  the  attributes  themselves  to 
the  human  nature  as  such." 

"Looked  at  in  this  light,  this  kind  of  communi- 
cation surely  belongs  to  a  full  Christological  view. 
The  theanthropic  Person  cannot  be  divided,  and 
in  the  unity  and  wholeness  of  Christ's  Person  since 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist      257 

His  exaltation,  He  is  Almighty,  omnipresent,  and 
infinite  in  all  divine  perfections.  This  gives  all 
that  is  necessary  to  a  correct  view  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

Whatever  and  however  great  the  changes 
that  took  place  in  the  passing  of  the  body  from  the 
natural  to  the  glorified  state  it  was  none  the  less 
really  the  body  of  Christ  preparatory  to  the  As- 
cension, but  as  to  its  real  nature  no  man  knoweth, 
nor  need  know,  and  all  speculation  is  unprofitable 
and  self-gratuitous.  I  could  not  believe  for  a  mo- 
ment such  a  grossly  materialistic  conception  as 
that  stated  in  Article  IV  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, that  "Christ  .  .  .  took  again  His  Body,  with 
flesh  and  bones,  and  things  appertaining  to  the 
perfection  of  man's  nature;  wherewith  He  ascend- 
ed into  heaven,"      It  is  too  earthy. 

It  is  the  nature  of  that  glorified  body  that  must 
be  taken  into  account  in  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
Presence,  for  it  is  the  glorified  body  that  we  be- 
lieve to  be  present.  That  was  very  different  from 
the  natural  body  that  had  been,  for  as  Plummer 
states:  "We  are  to  understand  disappearance  with- 
out physical  locomotion  when  the  risen  Christ 
suddenly  disappeared" ;  and  Briggs  says  of  the  As- 
cension :  "His  body  rose  from  the  earth  as  with- 
out weight,  and  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  gravi- 
tation, and  disappeared  in  the  sky."  .    .    .   "How 


258  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

far  the  human  body  has  been  assimilated  to  the 
divine  nature,  how  far  attributes  of  divinity  have 
influenced  the  humanity,  we  cannot  say.  If  we 
must,  on  the  one  hand,  deny  that  the  humanity 
has  been  deified,  and  so  possessed  of  all  attributes 
of  divinity,  we  must  recognize,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  human  nature  is  capable  of  the  divine  to  an 
indefinite  extent  and  that  its  capacities  and  powers 
must  be  immensely  enchanced.  /  can  see  no  ob- 
jection, therefore,  to  the  doctrine  of  multipresence. 
We  know  little  of  the  essential  nature  of  substance 
or  body.  Is  it  a  bundle  of  forces,  or  of  atoms? 
A  spiritual  body  cannot  be  a  bundle  of  material 
atoms.  Are  there  spiritual  atoms?  If  a  bundle 
of  forces,  there  must  be  a  principle  of  unity,  a  uni- 
fying force.  If  Calvinists  think  of  dynamic  pres- 
ence, may  that  not  be  interpreted  as  corporal 
presence?  The  latter  is  the  better  term  because 
it  is  more  comprehensive  and  leaves  the  nature  of 
the  presence  less  determinate  than  the  term  dynam- 
ic presence.  Roman  Catholics,  Lutherans  and  Cal- 
vinists ought  to  agree  upon  the  real,  substantial, 
corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  The 
chief  difficulty  as  to  the  relation  of  the  body  of 
Christ  to  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine." 

The  Apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  states:  "there  is  a  natural  body  and 
there  is  a  spiritual  body."     When  in  a  lecture  I 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     259 

quoted  this  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  Presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  student 
of  philosophy  took  exception  to  St.  Paul's  state- 
ment as  inv^olving  a  contradiction  of  terms.  I  re- 
minded the  objector  that  in  the  light  of  the  most 
recent  scientific  discoveries,  the  Apostle  may  not 
have  been  so  paradoxical  after  all,  for  some  of 
the  eminent  scientists,  like  Sir  Joseph  John  Thom- 
son, inform  us  that  their  "conceptions  of  the  na- 
ture and  structure  of  matter  have  been  profoundly 
influenced  in  recent  years  by  investigations  on  the 
conduction  of  electricity  through  gases  and  on 
Radio-activity."  For  a  long  time  the  atom,  as  its 
name  designates, — that  which  cannot  be  cut,  was 
supposed  to  be  the  limit  of  divisibility,  and  this 
hitherto  theoretical  particle  was  so  minute  that  no 
expert  microscopist  with  the  most  powerful  ob- 
jective was  ever  able  to  discern  it.  But  now  we 
have  gone  far  beyond  the  minuteness  of  the  atom, 
for  there  is  evidence  that  what  is  termed  mass  It- 
self may  be  an  "electro-magnetic  phenomenon." 
Hence  our  conceptions  of  matter  and  body  have 
undergone  some  modifications,  for  the  atom  has 
been  cut,  and  divided  into  infinitesimal  particles 
called  electrons.  The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica 
states  that  electrons  have  a  mass  equal  to  about 
one  two-thousandth  that  of  the  hydrogen  atom. 
They  are  apparently  derivable  from  all  kinds  of 


26o  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

matter,  and  are  believed  to  be  components  at  any 
rate  of  chemical  action.  The  size  of  the  electron 
is  roughly  in  the  ratio  of  a  pin's  head  to  the  dome 
of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral."  In  view  of  these  start- 
ling discoveries  in  the  realm  of  matter,  as  I  re- 
marked to  the  Semitic  Club,  the  great  Apostle 
does  not  appear  to  be  so  absolutely  self-contradic- 
tory when  he  states  that  "there  is  a  natural  body, 
and  there  is  a  spiritual  body."  With  the  results 
of  the  electron  theory  we  may  conceive  of  matter, 
and  a  body  as  being  so  infinitely  etherialized,  that 
St.  Paul  was  neither  unscientific  nor  unphilosoph- 
ical  in  his  statement,  though  made  so  many  cen- 
turies ago.  We  speak  of  a  luminous  body,  and 
why  may  it  not  be  admissible  to  speak  of  the 
glorified  body  as  a  spiritual  body?  I  have  not 
presented  this  digression  as  proof  of  the  scientific 
correctness  of  the  Apostle's  argument  nor  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  Presence  of  the  glorified  body 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  but  rather  as  an  illus- 
tration of  their  reasonableness, — barring  out  the 
ultra  materialistic  theories,  and  the  extravagant 
literalism  of  words,  and  confusion  of  grossly  ma- 
terial terms  in  language  that  is  not  only  repellent, 
but  beset  by  insuperable  difl'iculties,  even  for  the 
mind  to  conceive  of.  Surely  it  was  unguarded  lan- 
guage to  speak  of  oral  eating  and  drinking  of  the 
"flesh  of  God,"  and  the  "Flesh  of  Spirit,"  and 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     261 

"the  body  Is  crushed  by  the  teeth;"  "What  the 
bread  does  and  suffers,  that  the  body  of  Christ 
does  and  suffers."  It  is  true  that  such  unquahfied 
statements  uttered  in  the  heat  of  passionate  contro- 
versy must  not  be  taken  as  clearly  expressing  their 
views,  for  elsewhere  they  are  defined,  and  it  is  ut- 
terly unfair  to  talce  some  rugged  statements  out  of 
their  connection  when  uttered  to  combat  the  evil  in- 
fluences of  those  who  denied  the  objective  reality 
of  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
We  must  consider  the  times  and  issues  at  stake, 
and  then  we  cannot  cease  to  be  grateful  for  the 
immortal  Luther  for  his  uncompromising  adher- 
ence to  the  Word  of  God,  Dr.  Fisher  referring 
to  the  Conference  of  Marburg  states  that:  "Lu- 
ther had  not  the  temper  of  a  peacemaker,  as  Me- 
lanchthon  had  in  an  eminent  degree.  But  it  is  not 
to  Luther's  discredit  that  he  had  no  relish  for  am- 
biguities of  compromise." 

Luther  was  right  in  emphasizing  the  necessity  of 
the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  He  did  not  insist  upon  more  than  St. 
Paul  did,  and  he  did  not  dare  to  deny  the  substan- 
tial element  expressed  in  Christ's  own  words.  We 
of  a  gentler  spirit  may  blame  Luther  for  his  im- 
perious will  in  withholding  the  hand  of  fellowship, 
but  we  must  admire  him  in  being  true  to  his  con- 
victions, and  uncompromising  in  his  firm  adher- 


262  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ence  to  Christ's  own  words,  Instead  of  emptlng 
them  of  their  precious  content  by  making  an  un- 
Scriptural  compromise  with  ZwingH. 

Our  inability  to  know  the  real  character  of 
Christ's  existence  in  the  glorified  state,  with  a 
glorified  body,  is  the  chief  cause  of  our  difficulties 
and  misunderstandings  respecting  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  Presence,  for  we  must  reason  about  things 
that  we  cannot  know,  and  yet  we  make  use  of 
strictly  material  terms  "flesh  and  blood,"  though 
of  necessity  we  feel  compelled  to  refine  or  spirit- 
ualize them.  No  wonder  that  there  is  lack  of 
definiteness,  and  at  times  confusion  of  ideas  in  the 
words  and  phrases  employed  to  express  an  idea 
that  we  cannot  fully  comprehend,  though  we  may 
recognize  the  error  or  denial  of  the  Scriptural 
truth  itself  as  stated  in  the  Institution.  What 
Hooker  said  respecting  the  intellectual  difficulties 
of  apprehending  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation 
Is  applicable  here  also:  that:  "because  this  divine 
mystery  is  more  true  than  plain,  divers  having 
framed  the  same  to  their  own  conceits  or  fancies 
are  found  in  their  expositions  thereof  more  plain 
than  true." 

Christ  submitted  to  special  appearances  in  a 
visible-bodily  form  to  His  disciples  for  evidential 
reasons,  for  only  thus  by  manifesting  Himself  to 
their  senses  could  He  persuade  them  that  He  was 


Christ's   Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist      263 

no  mere  disembodied  spirit,  but  a  bodily  resurrec- 
tion of  the  identical  Christ  who  had  said:  "De- 
stroy this  body  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up 
again."  Hence  He  must  present  visibility,  and 
even  offer  tangibility  to  His  disciples  who  were  so 
slow  to  believe  what  seemed  so  incredible,  and  only 
overwhelming  evidence  of  an  undeniable  character 
could  convince  them.  The  properties  of  that  body 
had  changed,  for  closed  doors  were  no  barrier, 
and  He  appeared  and  disappeared  at  will.  The 
resurrection  body  was,  according  to  Briggs,  "the 
same  human  body  persisting  through  these  changes 
which  did  not  affect  the  form  of  the  body,  however 
much  they  may  have  affected  the  substance  of 
which  it  was  composed,  making  it  independent  of 
the  laws  of  material  substance  and  giving  it  some 
of  the  properties  of  spiritual  substance."  "That 
the  body  of  Jesus  saw  no  corruption  in  the  tomb 
may  have  been  an  act  of  the  Father,  or  of  the  Son 
Himself,  or  it  may  have  been  a  property  of  the 
Redeemer's  body  itself.  .  .  .  The  properties  of 
the  risen  body  of  our  Lord  are  certainly  most  re- 
markable. ...  It  was  a  body  which  shared  in 
ghostly  qualities,  and  in  part  in  qualities  of  the  or- 
dinary body.  Was  it  then,  in  a  state  of  transition 
from  one  to  the  other?  Certainly  not,  because  the 
same  body  that  died  rose  and  ascended,  and  re- 
mained in  heaven,  and  is  given  to  the  Church  in 


264  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  Eucharist.  That  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture 
and  of  the  Church;  and  it  is  based  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  behevers.  I  Cor.  15.  All 
Churches  agree  in  this,  whatever  variant  views 
they  may  have  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Redeemer's 
presence,  since  His  enthronement.  .  .  .  We  must 
therefore  think  of  the  Redeemer's  body,  as  hav- 
ing after  the  resurrection,  quahties  which  other  hu- 
man bodies  have  not,  and  as  being  composed  of 
substance  different  in  character  from  ordinary  hu- 
man flesh.  The  spirit  of  Jesus  rejoined  His  body 
in  the  tomb;  and  so  He  came  forth  in  bodily  form 
from  the  tomb,  and  He  manifested  Himself  to 
His  Apostles."    Id. 

What  then  is  the  present  nature  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  apart  from  all  human  speculation?  He 
is  still  the  God-man,  the  two  natures,  divine  and 
human  in  One  Person,  for  "Jesus  Christ  is  the 
same  yesterday  and  to-day,  yea  and  forever." 
"Having  then  a  great  High  Priest,  who  hath 
passed  through  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God, 
let  us  hold  fast  our  confession.  For  we  have  not 
a  high  priest  that  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feel- 
ing of  our  infirmities;  but  one  that  hath  been  in 
all  points  tempted  hke  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin." 

The  consensus  of  the  Christian  Church  con- 
cerning the  Person  of  Christ  has  been  that  the  Di- 
vine and  the  human  natures  are  united  in  one  Per- 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     265 

son,  and  their  activities  proceed  from  that  One 
Person.  Not  only  has  the  human  nature  been 
greatly  exalted  by  this  union,  but  Dr.  Hodge  states 
in  his  Lectures  that;  "the  human  attributes  of  our 
Redeemer  are  the  organ  of  His  divine  Person, 
and  are  through  the  divinity  rendered  virtually  in- 
exhaustible and  ubiquitously  available  for  us  .  .  . 
you  do  not  mean  simply  that  Christ's  divinity  will 
be  with  you.  You  mean  that  the  Person,  that  is, 
very  man  as  well  as  very  God  will  be  with  you. 
You  want  His  human  love  and  sympathy  as  well 
as  His  divine  benevolence.  If  He  were  a  mere 
man.  He  could  be  only  at  one  place  at  one  time, 
and  His  attention  and  sympathy  would  soon  be 
overwhelmed  by  our  demands.  But  He  is  at  once 
God  and  man,  and  as  such,  in  the  wholeness  and 
fulness  of  both  natures.  He  is  inexhaustible  and 
accessible  by  all  believers  in  heaven  and  on  earth 
at  once  and  forever  ...  As  both  soul  and  body 
act  together  inseparably;  as  human  voice  and  in- 
strument blend  in  one  harmony,  as  human  soul 
and  body  blend  in  each  act  of  feeling,  thought 
or  speech,  so  as  far  as  we  can  know,  divinity  and 
humanity  act  together  in  the  thought  and  heart 
and  act  of  Christ  ...  I  adore  a  Christ  who  Is 
absolutely  one,  who  is  at  the  same  time  pure,  un- 
mixed, unchanged  man,  and  whose  Person  in  Its 
wholeness  and  its  fulness  is  available  throushout 


266  Christ  and  the  hordes  Supper 

all  time  to  those  who  trust  Him  and  love  His 
appearing."  p.  233.  He  cannot  escape  the  con- 
clusion of  making  the  whole  Christ  "ubiquitously 
available  for  us."  I  have  given  this  lengthy  and 
exact  quotation  from  the  excellent  Lectures  of 
Dr.  Hodge,  for  he  acknowledges  in  his  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  what  is  of  fundamental 
importance  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  real 
Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
there  is  no  logical  escape  from  accepting  our  doc- 
trine, for  there  is  no  more  mystery  In  the  Lu- 
theran view  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Eucharist 
than  there  is  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of 
Christ,  and  the  intellectual  difficulties  are  not 
greater.  I  believe  Dr.  Hodge  would  have  freely 
admitted  this  for  he  states  that:  "this  unique  per- 
sonality, as  it  surpasses  all  analogy,  also  trans- 
cends all  understanding  .  .  .  All  attempts  to 
explain  the  intimate  relations  which  the  external 
Word  and  the  human  soul  and  body  sustain  to 
each  other  in  the  Person  of  Christ  have  miserably 
failed." 

"In  the  constitution  of  the  Person  of  the  God- 
man  lies  the,  to  us,  absolutely  insoluble  mystery  of 
godliness.  ..."  "The  divine  Word,  which  from 
eternity  was  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  did 
1800  years  ago  take,  not  a  human  person,  but  a 
human  nature  into  his  eternal  personality,  which 


Christ's   Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     267 

ever  continues,  not  a  human  person  nor  a  divine 
person,  but  the  eternal  Second  Person  of  the 
Trinity,  with  a  human  nature  embraced  in  it  as  its 
personal  organ."     Id.  222. 

Dr.  Stearns  says:  "That  Christ's  human  nature 
should  be  present  in  a  true  sense  in  a  thousand 
worshipping  assemblies  at  the  same  time,  and  com- 
municated to  every  one  who  partakes  of  the  con- 
secrated bread  and  wine,  this  must  be  the  case. 
And  even  though  we  may  hold  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent doctrine  of  the  sacrament,  there  is  much  in 
the  theory  of  Christ's  human  omnipresence  to  com- 
mend it  to  our  acceptance.  The  ordinary  view  in 
our  branch  of  the  Protestant  Church  is  that  Christ 
is  present  only  by  His  Spirit.  His  humanity  is 
circumscribed  and  local,  the  place  where  God 
manifests  His  highest  glory.  It  is  truly  absent 
from  us  as  our  friends  who  have  passed  from 
earth  and  gone  to  be  with  Him.  We  ask,  what  it 
means  for  Christ  to  be  with  us  by  His  Spirit?  Is 
it  not  a  real  presence?  When  He  dwells  in  our 
hearts  by  faith  (Eph.  3:17),  is  it  not  a  real  In- 
dwelling? Is  He  in  reality  far  from  us  in  His 
humanity?  And  so  to  those  who  think  most 
deeply  on  this  subject,  and  with  most  real  longing 
for  personal  communion  with  the  human  Christ, 
the  Lutheran  view  has  great  attractiveness,  even 
though  they  may  not  see  their  way  clear  to  accept 


268  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

it."  "But  when  all  is  said,  we  find  that  we  are 
once  more  in  the  realm  of  mystery.  That  Christ 
is  with  us  in  His  humanity  we  know.  But  how  it  is 
effected  we  do  not  know.  We  must  accept  the  fact 
in  the  silence  of  faith  and  leave  its  explanation  to 
the  time  of  fuller  knowledge." 

Dr.  Stearns  was  a  thinker,  and  a  profoundly 
spiritually-minded  theologian,  and  he  struggled 
earnestly  to  solve  the  mysteries  of  Christ's  Per- 
son, but  he  would  not  divide  the  Christ,  for  noth- 
ing short  of  the  whole  Christ,  the  God-man 
could  satisfy  the  needs  of  his  soul,  and  he  demand- 
ed this  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  as  well.  As  I  read 
his  confessions  I  am  persuaded  that  he  could  have 
had  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine as  taught  by  our  Church,  and  this  alone  could 
satisfy  his  soul. 

We  all  need  the  human  as  well  as  the  Divine 
Christ, — who  was  tempted  like  as  we  are  though 
without  sin,  who  was  wearied  in  body,  who  hun- 
gered, sorrowed  and  wept.  This  is  the  High  Priest 
and  Saviour  that  we  need,  and  whom  we  would 
meet  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  He  who  can  be  touched 
with  the  feelings  of  our  infirmity,  and  why  deny 
that  Presence  in  the  Eucharist? 

Luthardt  says :  "It  is  His  body.  It  is  not  merely 
an  image  and  sign  or  pledge  of  His  body.  How 
could  it  be  such?  What  would  be  the  tertium  com- 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist      269 

parationisf  This  the  Lord  would  not  say.  Nor 
is  the  mere  action  of  giving  an  image  of  spiritual 
giving,  for  the  Lord  speaks  not  of  the  action,  but 
of  the  thing  which  He  gives  them.  Rather,  what 
they  take  and  eat  in  taking  and  eating  the  bread 
is  His  body,"  "Invisibly  present,  and  working  in 
a  mysterious  way,  the  Lord  would  feed  us  with 
His  body.  When  He  departed  from  the  earth.  He 
took  with  Him  from  the  world  to  His  Father 
nothing  but  His  body  and  blood.  His  human  na- 
ture, in  which  He  reconciled  and  united  us  to 
God,  and  now  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father 
in  the  kingdom  of  glory.  This  His  human  nature 
He  makes  our  food.  ...  In  the  Lord's  Supper 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  on  earth  celebrates  its 
fellowship  with  Him  and  its  fellowship  with  it- 
self." 

Dr.  Krauth  says:  "The  truth  is,  that  when  we 
admit  the  personal  union  of  thfe  human  nature  of 
Christ  with  a  divine  nature,  we  have  already  ad- 
mitted the  fact,  in  which  the  mystery  of  Christ's 
sacramental  presence  is  absorbed.  The  whole  di- 
vine person  of  Christ  is  confessedly  present  at  the 
Supper,  but  the  human  nature  has  been  taken  into 
that  personality,  and  forms  one  person  with  it; 
hence  the  one  person  of  Christ,  consisting  of  the 
two  natures,  is  present,  and  of  necessity  the  two 
natures   which    constitute    it    are   present."      He 


270  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

quotes  Gerhard  that:  "The  sacramental  eating  of 
the  body  of  Christ  is  none  other  than  with  the 
mouth  ('take  eat')  to  receive  the  Eucharistic 
bread,  which  is  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  (I  Cor.  10:16).  This  sacramental  eating 
is  said  to  be  spiritual,  because  the  body  of  Christ 
is  not  eaten  naturally,  and  because  the  mode  of 
eating,  like  the  presence  itself,  is  neither  natural, 
carnal,  physical,  nor  local,  but  supernatural,  di- 
vine, mystical,  heavenly,  and  spiritual.  .  .  .  The 
Word  of  God  is  the  food  of  the  soul,  and  yet  is  re- 
ceived by  the  bodily  ear." 

"The  Lutheran  Church  repeatedly  and  unequiv- 
ocally has  denied  all  local  or  carnal  presence  of 
Christ's  body,  and  has  affirmed  that,  as  antago- 
nistic to  any  such  conceptions.  His  presence  is  spir- 
itual." "To  be  omnipresent  of  itself,  in  virtue  of 
its  own  essence,  is  an  attribute  of  the  divine,  and 
therefore  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  not  and  can- 
not be  omnipresent  of  itself,  in  virtue  of  its  own 
essence;  but  the  Godhead  can  render  it  present 
through  the  divine,  with  which  it  is  one  person. 
.  .  .  The  divine  in  Christ  is  forever  divine;  the 
human  forever  human,  so  can  they  never  be  sep- 
arated, and  the  one  person  participates  in  both, 
and  each  has  a  personal  communication  with  the 
attributes  of  the  other.  Great  is  the  mystery  of 
Godliness:    God    was    manifest    in    the    flesh." 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     271 

Krauth  quotes  Melanchthon  :  "It  is  not  to  be  imag- 
ined that  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  anywhere  where 
His  humanity  is  not:  for  what  is  this  but  to  sepa- 
rate Christ?"  .  .  .  "Why  should  there  be  these 
contentions  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper?  As 
all  confess  that  Christ  is  present  in  the  communion, 
according  to  His  divine  nature,  to  what  purpose  is 
it  to  separate  the  humanity  from  the  divinity?" 

"This  presence  is  spiritual,  when  that  word  is 
opposed  to  carnal,  but  it  is  not  spiritual  when  that 
word  is  opposed  to  true.  .  .  .  His  body  is  a  spirit- 
ual body,  as  opposed  to  the  present  conditions  and 
limitations  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  it  is  not  spiritual 
as  opposed  to  real  and  natural."  "This  presence 
does  not  depend  for  its  reality  (but  alone  for  its 
salutary  results)  upon  the  faith  of  the  receiver." 
"It  is  through  His  human  nature  that  Christ  is 
our  Paschal  Lamb  sacrificed;  and  therefore  it  must 
be  through  His  human  nature  that  Christ  our 
Paschal  Lamb  is  eaten."  We  must  hold  to  the 
belief  "of  an  objective  presence  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood."  As  to  the  mode  of  the  sacramental 
Presence  of  Christ,  Dr.  Krauth  states  that  the 
Lutheran  Church:  "believes  that  the  sacramental 
elements  are  divinely  appointed  through  the  power 
of  the  Saviour's  own  benediction,  as  the  medium 
through  which  we  participate,  after  a  spiritual, 
supernatural,  heavenly,  substantial,  objective,  and 


272  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

true  manner,  in  the  communion  of  His  body  and  of 
His  blood.  (I  Cor.  10:16.)  Our  Church  never 
has  denied  that  the  Ascension  of  Christ  was  real, 
literal  and  local;  never  has  denied  that  His  body 
has  a  determinate  presence  in  heaven;  never  has 
maintained  that  it  has  a  local  presence  on  earth. 
Neither  does  she  impute  to  Him  two  bodies — one 
present  and  one  absent,  one  natural  and  the  other 
glorified — but  she  maintains  that  one,  forever  a 
natural  and  true  body  as  to  its  essence,  but  no 
longer  in  its  natural  or  earthly  condition,  but 
glorified,  is  absent,  indeed,  in  one  mode,  but  pres- 
ent in  another.  .  .  .  It  is  on  earth,  for  the  divine 
is  on  earth — it  is  in  heaven  for  the  divine  remains 
in  heaven,  and  like  the  divine  it  (i.e.,  the  body) 
is  present  truly  and  substantially,  yet  incomprehen- 
sibly." 651  ..  .  "He  imparts  His  presence  that 
there  may  be  a  reason  for  the  sacramental  eating. 
But  He  imparts  it  with  His  word,  by  whose  om- 
nipotent force  the  element  becomes  a  sacrament. 
Therefore  when  He  speaks,  we  know  it  is  done." 
.  .  .  "The  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is, 
that  the  sacramental  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  begins  with  the  beginning  of  the 
Supper,  and  ends  with  the  end  of  the  Supper.  .  .  . 
That  presence  is  vouchsafed  on  condition  that  the 
divine  essentials  of  the  Institution  be  observed. 
As  the  Formula  of  Concord  states :  'As  to  the  con- 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     273 

secration,  we  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  the 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  to  be 
ascribed  solely  to  the  Almighty  power  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  The  words  of  the  institution, 
are  by  no  means  to  be  omitted.  .  .  .  The  'blessing' 
takes  place  through  the  repetition  of  the  words  of 
Christ."     823. 

It  is  neither  reverent  nor  reasonable  for  any 
one  believing  in  Christ  and  His  Word  to  say  that 
in  claiming  such  efficacy  to  the  elements  by  the 
repetition  of  the  words  of  Institution,  we  make 
ourselves  liable  to  the  charge  of  assigning  to  them 
a  species  of  magic,  not  unlike  some  heathen  prac- 
tices or  rite  in  repeating  some  prescribed  magical 
formula,  for  such  reasoning,  and  such  an  inference 
is  fallacious.  It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  charge 
the  man  with  magical  claims,  who  by  filling  out  a 
check  and  affixing  his  signature  thereto,  should 
state  that  the  piece  of  paper  was  no  longer  the 
same,  but  was  now  $100.00.  The  words  of  the 
responsible  man  had  made  it  $100.00  indeed,  and 
no  one  questions  it.  But  the  words  of  the  Institu- 
tion are  Christ's  own  words  who  declared  that 
heaven  and  earth  should  pass  away  but  His  words 
should  not  pass  away.  We  who  minister  at  the 
sacramental  altar  are  "ambassadors  therefore  on 
behalf  of  Christ;  as  though  God  were  entreating 
by  us;  we  beseech  you  on  behalf  of  Christ"  ;  and  as 


274  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

His  ambassadors  to  teach  all  things  that  He  has 
commanded  us;  we  repeat  His  own  words,  without 
any  revision  or  addition  thereto:  "Take,  eat;  this 
is  my  body."  Who  would  be  so  irreverent  as  to 
say  that  this  sounds  like  magic  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  after  He  had  blessed  the  elements?  But 
Christ  is  ever  the  same,  and  why  deny  that  effi- 
cacy to  His  identical  words  to-day?  Our  precon- 
ceptions of  a  particular  theory  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Eucharist  may  bias  our  minds  so  as  to  refuse 
all  inquiry  into  the  actual  facts  of  historical  value 
for  a  proper  understanding  of  the  problems  in- 
volved; but  the  Church  universal  acknowledges 
the  truth  of  Christ's  words  spoken  at  the  Institu- 
tion, and  we  cannot  deny  the  efficacy  that  He  as- 
cribed to  them,  however  profound  the  mystery 
may  be  to  us. 

Our  Church  holds  to  a  true  presence  of  the 
whole  Christ,  as  Krauth  says;  "the  factor  of  which 
is  not  our  mind,  but  His  own  divine  person.  We 
do  not  think  Him  into  the  Supper,  but  He  is  verily 
and  indeed  there.  Faith  does  not  put  Him,  but 
finds  Him  there."  .  .  .  "It  was  the  whole  Christ 
— the  man  as  well  as  the  God — who  said:  'Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.'  It  was  the  whole 
Christ  who  said:  'Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world.'    And  what  the  whole 


Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  the  Eucharist     275 

Christ  promised,  the  whole  Christ  will  perform." 
We  rest  our  faith  solely  upon  the  words  of  Christ 
— without  wavering  in  our  belief  because  of  the 
low  ebb  in  our  momentary  emotions,  but  "ever 
looking  unto  Jesus  the  author  and  perfecter  of  our 
faith," — who  gives  Himself  to  us  in  the  Holy 
Communion;  the  Christ  of  history;  the  divine  and 
human  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  the  only  Christ  we 
know,  who  instituted  the  Last  Supper  when  He 
took  the  bread  and  gave  it  to  His  disciples,  saying: 
"Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body." 


VII 

SIDE  LIGHTS   FROM  COMPARATIVE   RELIGIONS 

IN  a  critical  investigation  or  study  of  the  Eu- 
charist we  encounter  certain  problems  to-day 
that  did  not  enter  into  the  discussion  some  years 
ago.  It  is  possible  to  confine  ourselves  entirely  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  Institution, 
and  the  various  views  held  by  different  writers  of 
the  Church,  butit  seems  to  me  that  in  this  age  of  his- 
torical research  and  criticism  it  would  be  a  mis- 
take to  ignore  the  historical  setting,  and  certain 
contemporary  religious  influences  that  may  have 
an  important  bearing  upon  the  subject,  for  these 
unquestionably  shed  some  light  upon  certain  words 
employed  in  the  Institution,  if  not  upon  the  Sacra- 
ment itself.  Such  a  study  has  the  advantage  that 
it  takes  us  back  to  contemporary  peoples  and  re- 
ligious institutions  and  ceremonies,  that  in  some 
instances  bear  a  striking  analogy  in  certain  out- 
ward details,  and  terminology  to  the  Holy  Com- 
munion. This  fact  need  not  startle  us  as  though 
the  foundations  for  our  faith  in  the  Eucharist  were 
in  danger,  and  instead  of  ignoring  it,  it  should  be 

276 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     277 

taken  seriously  into  account  and  its  outstanding 
facts  examined  in  their  direct  relation  to  Chris- 
tianity, for  the  challenge  must  be  met,  and  not  by 
the  contempt  of  silent  indifference. 

It  is  not  strange  that  some  divine  truth  came 
through  other  religions,  for  there  is  one  God  and 
Father  of  us  all,  and  He  was  ever  the  same  loving- 
heavenly  Father,  recognizing  all  humanity  as  His 
offspring,  and  seeking  all  His  children  everywhere 
that  He  might  influence  them  for  truth  and  right- 
eousness. When  He  manifested  Himself  in  Christ 
that  was  the  fulness  of  time,  and  never  had  there 
been  such  a  revival  of  religions  in  the  world;  such 
a  universal  longing  and  seeking  after  a  religion 
that  would  satisfy  the  deepest  wants  of  the  soul. 
As  St.  Paul  expresses  it,  they  were  seeking  God, 
"if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him  and  find  him, 
though  he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us:  for  in 
him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being;  for  we 
are  also  his  offspring."  With  all  the  error  in  their 
confused  mysticism  there  were  truths  that  pre- 
pared them  for  something  better.  This  they 
found  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  as  the  teachers 
were  all  human,  they  made  use  of  human  endeavor 
in  the  spread  of  the  knowledge  that  they  received, 
and  they  expressed  their  Christian  ideas  in  the  pre- 
vailing Greek  language  that  became  the  vehicle  of 
their  thoughts.     They  did  not  Invent  a  new  Ian- 


278  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

guage,  nor  coin  an  entirely  new  vocabulary,  but 
they  were  obliged  to  make  use  of  pagan  words 
when  proclaiming  the  new  faith.  When  they 
spoke  of  the  Supreme  Being  they  made  use  of  the 
same  word  that  the  Greeks  did  when  they  referred 
to  their  great  God  Zeus,  although  their  conception 
of  God  as  our  loving-heavenly  Father  was  quite 
different.  The  same  was  true  of  the  word  "Lord," 
and  "Saviour,"  and  yet  the  Christians  took  over 
these  words  from  the  Greeks,  and  adopted  them 
into  their  theology.  They  did  not  reject  them  and 
seek  to  substitute  new  ones  of  their  own  coining. 
However,  it  is  not  quite  so  clear  in  reference  to 
some  other  words  that  the  Christians  appropri- 
ated, for  in  the  case  of  Deity,  the  many  attributes 
that  the  Christians  attributed  to  God  were  suffi- 
ciently explanatory  to  make  the  discrimination 
clear,  if  not  always  unmistakable.  But  when  St. 
Paul  uses  a  word  from  pagan  sources  that  is  not 
so  self-explanatory,  then  we  must  examine  its  use 
in  some  contemporary  institution  that  had  certain 
analogous  ceremonies  or  sacramental  ideas,  for 
example,  so  as  to  discover  if  possible  the  exact 
meaning  that  they  attached  to  that  word.  The 
necessity  of  this  is  imperative,  inasmuch  as  the 
Christians  appropriated  the  word  directly  from 
this  pagan  source  in  religious  worship,  to  serve  in 
the  expression  of  their  Christian  thought  in  the 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     279 

new  religion.  The  very  fact  of  taking  a  promi- 
nent word  from  the  celebration  of  the  distinctive 
worship  or  ordinance  in  the  pagan  religion,  and 
adapting  it  to  a  fundamental  place  in  defining  the 
meaning  of  a  Christian  sacrament,  indicates  some 
corresponding  elements  of  similarity  or  resem- 
blance at  least,  however  remote  the  analogy  of  the 
essential  elements  may  be.  At  all  events,  the  log- 
ical order  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  to  go  back  as 
far  as  possible  so  as  to  reason  from  the  known, 
and  first  ascertain  the  meaning  that  the  pagans  at- 
tached to  the  word  as  used  in  their  religious  cere- 
monies. 

But  some  may  ask,  What  has  all  this  to  do  with 
our  belief  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  we  have  re- 
ceived it  through  the  centuries,  and  direct  from 
the  sacred  books?  Much,  we  reply,  as  already 
indicated,  because  it  enables  us  to  study  and  ana- 
lyze contemporary  thought  and  usage  respecting 
"communion,"  and  we  get  the  classical  meaning 
that  was  attached  to  the  identical  word  used  in  the 
celebration  of  certain  feasts  that  embraced  similar 
ideas.  It  gives  us  vivid  realism  of  their  point  of 
view  as  we  get  back  to  the  contemporary  period 
itself,  and  among  the  primitive  sources  of  corre- 
sponding beliefs  of  the  pagan  world,  from  which 
St.  Paul  obtained  certain  words,  and  this  gives  us 
that  known-early  use  for  interpreting  the  Apostle's 


2  8o  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

words.  This  method  reverses  the  too  common 
one  of  bringing  the  Apostle  to  our  age  and  west- 
ern mode  of  thinking,  and  insisting  that  the  mean- 
ing of  his  words  must  conform  to  our  modern 
opinion.  The  more  scientific  method  would  be  to 
reverse  the  order,  and  take  ourselves  back  through 
the  centuries  to  Paul's  country  and  age,  and  listen 
to  his  contemporaries  as  they  explained  the  use  of 
similar  words  employed  in  their  feasts.  We  can- 
not make  the  Apostle  responsible  for  any  modern 
theory  by  forcing  the  interpretation  of  his  words. 
We  must  put  ourselves  in  the  past;  get  Paul's 
point  of  view,  and  see  the  religious  institutions 
about  him  as  he  saw  them.  What  did  the  words 
that  he  employed  mean  in  his  day,  and  what  mean- 
ing did  he  intend  that  they  should  convey  to  others 
through  the  letters  that  he  wrote?  I  know  that 
language  is  but  the  vehicle  of  thought,  and  tRat 
men  have  often  been  misunderstood  and  misrepre- 
sented by  the  very  language  that  they  used.  This  Is 
even  true  of  celebrated  legal  documents,  and  we 
are  familiar  with  contests  over  the  Intent  of  lan- 
guage used  in  wills,  for  since  the  testator  Is  dead 
It  Is  Impossible  to  get  his  explanation  of  the  mat- 
ter in  dispute.  Inasmuch  as  the  difficulty  of  In- 
terpretation Is  often  so  great  even  when  the  docu- 
ment has  been  written  by  an  able  lawyer,  It  need 
not  seem  strange  that  St.  Paul  has  been  variously 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     281 

interpreted,  nor  should  it  disqualify  him  in  the 
mind  of  any  as  being  a  reliable  writer.  In  view  of 
much  of  the  bitterness  that  has  at  times  character- 
ized the  controversies  respecting  the  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  no  doubt  many  have  wished 
that  the  words  of  Institution  might  have  been  so 
exceeding  plain  that  the  most  skilled  controversial- 
ist could  not  possibly  have  taken  a  different  view, 
and  that  the  simplest  minds  might  not  err  therein. 
All  must  deplore  the  extremes  that  have  separated 
believers  where  they  should  meet  together  in  this 
central  place  of  universal  worship  in  the  Christian 
Church  through  the  centuries. 

I  am  convinced  from  years  of  study  of  the  con- 
temporary monuments  of  the  ancients,  that  the 
documentary  evidence  will  yield  valuable  testi- 
mony, and  to  the  earnest  student  of  historical  re- 
search who  desires  to  know  the  truth,  they  will 
have  a  value  of  fundamental  importance  in  the  un- 
derstanding of  terms,  if  not  of  the  content  of  the 
Eucharist  itself.  St.  Paul  put  into  his  letters  cer- 
tain forms  of  expression  best  calculated  to  express 
the  Christian  truth,  for  the  thought  was  divine 
though  he  gave  it  a  verbal  setting  in  words  appro- 
priated from  pagan  use. 

As  an  interesting  example  of  independent  par- 
allelism, and  at  the  same  time  an  excellent  illus- 
tration of  Paul's  advice  given  to  the  Church  at 


282  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Corinth  (I  Cor.  10:27),  Delssman  cites  two  short 
letters  of  invitation,  of  the  second  century  A.  D., 
found  at  Oxyrhynchus;  given  in  these  words: 
"Chairemon  invites  you  to  dine  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord  Sarapis  in  the  Sarapeion  to-morrow,  the 
1 5th,  at  9  o'clock."  The  other  is  as  follows :  "An- 
tonios  son  of  Ptolemaios,  invites  you  to  dine  with 
him  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  Sarapis  in  the  house 
of  Claudius  Sarapion  on  the  i6th.,  at  9  o'clock." 
There  is  a  striking  parallelism  between  the  expres- 
sion "the  table  of  the  Lord  Sarapis,"  and  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  Paul  "the  Lord's  table,"  but  not  nec- 
essarrily  any  borrowing.  The  Apostle  was  inde- 
pendent by  priority  of  time,  and  Deissman  thinks 
that  in  all  probability  he  was  influenced  by  the 
Greek  Old  Testament  (Mai.  1:7,  12;  Ezk.  39  :20, 
and  44:16)  ;  just  as  the  phrase  "table  of  devils" 
in  I  Cor.  10:21  points  to  the  Septuagint  version  of 
Is.  65:11.  He  would  not  assume  the  Pauline 
origin  of  the  Sarapis  formula,  though  it  is  not 
impossible.  All  that  we  know  is  that  "the  two 
phrases  crop  up,  as  it  were,  side  by  side,  without 
any  apparent  genealogical  connexion.  The  les- 
son of  the  Egyptian  parallel  is  that  again  in  an  im- 
portant particular  the  pagan  phraseology  approxi- 
mates to  the  technical  phraseology  of  early  Chris- 
tianity. In  order  to  make  plain  to  his  Corinthians 
the  nature  of  the  Christian  Eucharist,  St.  Paul 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     283 

did  not  scruple  to  employ  the  analogy  of  the  pagan 
sacred  feasts."  (I  Cor.  10:19,  21.)  New  Light 
on  the  New  Testament,  p.  84.  Many  scholars 
once  supposed  that  the  Apostle  Paul  had  coined 
the  adjective  KvplaKos  used  in  I  Cor.  1 1  :20  to  desig- 
nate the  Eucharist  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  Deiss- 
man  calls  attention  to  its  contemporary  use  in  the 
current  language  of  which  St.  Paul  made  use. 
Whilst  this  fact  is  proved  by  inscriptions  from 
papyri  and  ostraca,  Deissman  cites  an  example 
from  Egypt,  of  which  he  says:  "We  have  here  a 
clear  case  of  a  word  current  in  the  official  political 
phraseology  of  the  East  being  taken  over  into  the 
religious  vocabulary  of  primitive  Christianity." 

By  reproducing  some  outstanding  facts  of  the 
historic  background  of  primitive  Christianity  by 
the  aid  of  the  ancient  monuments,  whether  the  in- 
scriptions are  contained  on  papyri,  ostraca,  coins 
or  tablets,  we  may  discover  some  most  interesting 
and  illuminating  facts.  Occasionally  some  start- 
ling parallelism  of  a  New  Testament  word,  sym- 
bol or  divine  designation  will  appear.  Not  only 
do  we  find  the  symbol  of  the  cross  on  some  Greek 
coins,  but  divine  titles  given  to  the  ruler  who  is 
called  god,  and  because  deified,  there  followed 
Emperor  worship.  This  cult  was  naturally  abhor- 
rent to  the  monotheistic  Jew,  and  the  Christian 
who  regarded  it  as  a  sacrilege,  and  many  suffered 


284  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

the  penalty  of  death  rather  than  sin  against  con- 
science by  offering  Incense  to  the  genius  of  the 
Cassar-god.  No  doubt  the  early  Christians  suf- 
fered many  misgivings  when  compelled  to  receive, 
and  pay  out  again  even  for  the  most  sacred  serv- 
ices of  their  holy  religion,  the  current  money  that 
bore  the  effigy  of  the  ruling  emperor,  and  some 
with  the  shocking  legend  of  deity.  Even  as  early 
as  the  third  century  B.C.,  the  silver  coin  or  tetra- 
drachm  of  Antiochus  II  bore  this  title  and  we  read 
the  same  on  the  similar  coin  that  bears  the  bold 
portrait  of  that  mad  Syrian  king  Antiochus  IV 
Epiphanes  who  so  outrageously  desecrated  the 
Temple  in  Jerusalem  in  the  year  167  B.  C.  by  sac- 
rificing the  abhorred  swine  on  the  altar  in  the 
holy  place.  On  his  tetradrachms  he  designates 
himself  as  God. 

With  the  background  of  history  distinctly  be- 
fore us  we  get  a  new  and  vivid  emphasis,  with  the 
addition  of  a  supreme  truth  in  that  recorded  inter- 
view of  Jesus  with  His  enemies  on  the  occasion 
when  seeking  to  entrap  Him  in  His  words,  they 
asked  Him:  "Shall  we  render  to  Cassar  tribute  or 
not?"  Jesus  asked  them  to  show  Him  a  piece  of 
the  tribute  money,  and  pointing  to  the  portrait  of 
the  Emperor  Tiberius  upon  the  denarius  he  asked 
whose  effigy,  and  whose  Inscription  it  was?  When 
they  replied  that  It  was  Caesar's  then  He  gave  that 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     285 

remarkable  answer  for  all  time,  that  put  them  to 
silence:  "Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things 
that  are  Caesar's;  and  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God's."  In  that  concrete  and  pregnant  saying 
Jesus  drew  a  sharp  contrast  between  Caesar  and 
God.  Tiberius  was  the  Emperor,  and  entitled  to 
the  loyalty  that  men  should  render  to  the  state,  but 
he  was  not  God,  in  spite  of  the  much-abused  apo- 
theosis of  rulers;  there  was  the  Infinite  One,  the 
only  true  God,  infinitely  higher,  the  Sovereign 
Ruler  over  all,  the  King  of  kings,  and  the  Lord  of 
lords, — to  whom  all  owe  allegiance,  rulers  as  well, 
and  Him  alone  should  all  people  worship. 

No  wonder  that  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Church  at 
Corinth:  "There  is  no  God  but  One.  For 
though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in 
heaven  or  on  earth;  as  there  are  gods  many,  and 
lords  many;  yet  to  us  there  is  one  God,  the  Father 
of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  unto  Him  :  and  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things, 
and  we  through  Him."  The  primitive  Church 
greatly  needed  this  positive  discrimination  when 
polytheism  prevailed,  and  rulers  received  deifica- 
tion. The  Roman  emperors  came  to  this  lordly  in- 
heritance quite  naturally  through  the  influence  of 
the  Greeks  who  in  the  fourth  century  B.C.  dei- 
fied Alexander  the  Great,  and  after  death  he  re- 
ceived the  distinction  of  being  the  first  man  to  have 


286  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

his  effigy  placed  upon  the  coinage,  an  honor  hither- 
to reserved  for  the  gods  and  goddesses  only,  but 
subsequent  rulers  were  similarly  honored.  In  ad- 
dition to  these  records  from  numismatic  monu- 
ments from  an  extant  official  inscription  of  Ephe- 
sus  we  learn  that  its  city  Council  did  not  account  it 
sacrilege  to  speak  of  Julius  Caesar  the  Dictator, 
as  "the  God  manifest,  offspring  of  Ares  and  Aph- 
rodite, and  common  Saviour  of  human  life."  The 
Emperor  Augustus  on  an  inscription  of  March 
17,  24  B.C.  is  flattered  with  the  designation  as 
"god  of  god,"  and  a  votive  inscription  contempo- 
rary with  St.  Paul  descends  to  the  depths  of  un- 
scrupulous adulation  by  calling  that  indescribably 
base  Emperor  Nero  "the  good  god."  In  the  light 
of  such  outstanding  historical  facts  from  the  times 
of  the  great  Apostle  we  can  appreciate  the  neces- 
sity for  the  caution  to  the  Corinthian  church  al- 
ready referred  to.  We  find  an  ancient  Greek  in- 
scription that  was  dedicated  to  the  "Honor  of 
Ptolemy  the  Saviour  and  god."  I  recall  a  familiar 
Greek  tetradrachm  with  the  inscription  that  desig- 
nates a  ruler  as  "Saviour  of  the  Thasians."  I  saw 
a  marble  pedestal  from  Pergamon,  now  set  up  at 
great  expense  in  Berlin,  that  bears  this  startling 
inscription:  "The  Emperor  Caesar,  son  of  a  god, 
the  god  Augustus,  of  every  land  and  sea  the  over- 
seer."   As  the  altogether  human  Emperor  was  still 


Side  Lights  from   Comparative  Religions     287 

living  at  the  time,  no  doubt  he  would  have  blushed 
had  he  seen  such  undue  extravagance.  And  yet 
this  was  greatly  surpassed  in  extravagant  flattery, 
for  Deissman  in  his  recent  volume,  Light  from  the 
Ancient  East,  gives  a  facsimile  of  a  marble  slab 
from  Magnesia  that  contains  this  votive  inscrip- 
tion :  to  Nero,  as,  "Son  of  the  greatest  of  the  gods, 
Tiberius  Claudius,  etc." 

In  these  examples  of  divine  titles  ascribed  to 
rulers  we  have  some  interesting  parallelisms  with 
the  titles  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  they 
have  a  very  different  significance  from  those  ap- 
plied to  Christ  by  the  Apostle  St.  Paul,  for  their 
content  is  not  the  same  as  the  writer  so  clearly  ex- 
pressed it  in  the  letter  referred  to.  The  word  Lord 
was  commonly  applied  to  the  rulers,  as  was  famil- 
iar to  the  Apostle,  and  hence  he  makes  that  distinc- 
tion so  clear  when  he  applies  the  title  to  Christ 
Jesus.  It  is  true  that  a  Boeotian  town  in  the  year 
67,  immortalized  Nero  on  a  marble  tablet  by  call- 
ing him  "Lord  of  the  whole  world,"  and  in  the 
year  previous,  when  the  Persian  king  Tiridates 
came  to  Italy  he  paid  homage  to  the  same  Emper- 
or at  Naples  as  "the  lord,"  and  later  at  Rome  as 
"the  god" :  but  this  Roman  Csesar  was  a  temporal 
ruler  only,  and  not  a  universal  and  continuous  one. 
But  Christ  was  represented  as  the  eternal  One,  the 
Supreme   Lord  and   Master.     The   aged  bishop 


288  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

Polycarp  at  Smyrna  suffered  martyrdom  rather 
than  acknowledge  the  Emperor  as  Lord.  The 
Christian  Speratus  at  Carthage,  July  17,  180,  died 
for  his  faith  when  the  Roman  officials  said  to  him : 
"Swear  by  the  genius  of  our  lord  the  Emperor," 
for  he  replied :  "I  know  no  imperium  of  this  world. 
...  I  know  my  Lord,  the  King  of  kings,  and 
Emperor  of  all  nations."  Deissman  in  his  work 
of  191 1  called  attention  to  a  most  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  present  use  of  that  which  the  primi- 
tive Church  abhorred:  "The  Church  of  England 
prays  'through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord'  for  'our 
most  gracious  Sovereign  Lord'  the  King,  and  there 
is  no  offence  in  the  collocation,  but  few  users  of  the 
prayer  ever  dream  of  what  lies  behin;d  these 
words — that  there  were  times  in  which  the  most 
earnest  among  Christians  went  to  execution  rather 
than  transfer  to  a  man  the  divine  title  of  their  Sa- 
viour." Of  course,  the  word  Kvpios  does  not 
necessarily  mean  in  itself  alone  to  imply  divinity, 
for  that  would  be  determined  by  the  connexion,  or 
other  qualifying  words,  and  in  the  Septuagint,  as 
well  as  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  it  is  applied  to  mas- 
ters of  slaves,  but,  it  had  a  special  significance 
when  used  as  a  title  of  Jesus — the  Divine  Lord  of 
lords.  Even  to-day  the  word  lord  is  used  as  a  title 
of  honored  distinction  among  men  in  England,  and 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     289 

the  government  has  its  house  of  Lords,  but  no  mis- 
understanding arises  from  this  modern  use. 

It  is  all  important  to  have  a  clear  and  correct  his- 
torical background  of  primitive  Christianity,  and 
its  intense  religious  environment.  In  the  truest  and 
most  literal  sense  it  was  the  fulness  of  time  when 
Christ  came,  for  everywhere  the  Greek  and  Ro- 
man world  was  ripe  and  ready  for  the  living  God- 
manifest  in  the  flesh.  As  Deissman  states:  "The 
great  mass  of  the  people  were  deeply  religious, 
and  even  in  the  upper  classes  there  were  plenty  of 
pious  souls.  This  has  been  proved  irrefutably  by 
Friedlander  from  the  inscriptions  in  his  sketches 
of  the  history  of  Roman  morals.  And  one  who  is 
not  satisfied  with  this  evidence  might  calculate  the 
enormous  sums  of  money  that  were  then  volunta- 
rily devoted  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West  to 
religious  purposes,  to  temples,  to  oracles,  priests, 
and  pious  foundations.  The  great  religious  move- 
ments also  bear  witness  to  the  strong  hold  that 
religion  had  upon  the  men  of  that  generation. 
Gods  migrated  and  became  blended  with  the  gods 
of  other  nations.  Foreign  cults  came  from  the 
East  and  from  the  South  and  mixed  with  the  old 
forms  of  worship;  Isis,  Sarapis,  and  later,  Attis 
and  Mithra  found  everywhere  their  enthusiastic 
devotees.    Our  general  verdict  as  historians  of  re- 


290  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

llglon  must  be  framed  like  this :  that  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  mankind  were  not  tired  of  religion,  or 
hostile  to  religion,  but  friendly  to  religion,  and 
hungering  for  it."  This  statement  is  also  sup- 
ported by  the  testimony  of  a  contemporary  witness 
who  thoroughly  understood  the  religious  spirit  of 
his  times,  for  when  addressing  the  crowds  that 
gathered  about  him  St.  Paul  said:  "Ye  men  of 
Athens,  in  all  things  I  perceive  that  ye  are  very 
religious."  Perhaps  superstitious  is  what  Paul 
really  meant. 

There  is  a  vast  difference  between  a  purely  Im- 
aginative conception  of  the  historic  setting  of 
primitive  Christianity,  and  one  that  Is  based  upon 
the  actual  facts  of  history.  There  was  no  homo- 
geneous class  of  people,  but  a  most  heterogeneous 
one  gathered  from  various  and  distant  sources, 
with  innumerable  gradations  of  heathenism,  dif- 
fering greatly  in  religious  beliefs  and  culture, 
ranging  from  the  highest  aristocracy  to  the  most 
abject  slavery.  Prof.  Bigg  thinks  that  in  a  little 
Italian  town  probably  nearly  everybody  could  read 
and  write,  as  we  may  conclude  from  the  existing 
remains  of  graffiti  scrawled  on  the  walls  of  Pom- 
peii. He  Is  also  of  the  opinion  that  "the  propor- 
tion of  Illiterates  does  not  seem  to  be  larger  than 
could  be  found  in  the  marriage  registers  of  an 
English  country  parish  100  years  ago.  .   .  Among 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     291 

the  clergy  of  the  Church  the  standard  was  not 
high.  .  .  The  Fathers  of  the  Western  Church, 
generally  speaking,  knew  Virgil  by  heart,  and  in 
the  East,  Homer  was  equally  familiar." 

"The  Schools  imparted  nothing  but  the  merest 
smattering  of  philosophy,  and  the  results  of  this 
superficial  veneer  are  clearly  to  be  discerned  in  the 
age  of  the  Four  Great  Councils.  What  the  Fa- 
thers then  defined  was  undoubtedly  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  The  thing  was  the  Christian  belief,  but 
the  voice  was  that  of  the  schools.  Men  found 
themselves  driven  to  use  words  borrowed  from 
Plato  and  the  Stoics,  Essence,  Hypostasis,  Sub- 
stance and  others,  which  they  themselves  did  not 
thoroughly  understand,  and  hence  arose  naturally 
the  most  disastrous  strife  and  confusion.  The 
Greek  Church,  which  was  the  better  educated,  was 
amply  justified  in  its  dislike  of  all  philosophical 
terms.  .  .  .  The  meaning  of  the  word  Essence 
differed  in  every  school.  The  Latins  avoided  the 
word  Essence  and  used  in  its  place  Hypostasis  (or 
its  Latin  equivalent  Substantia)  ^l^ut  Hypostasis 
was  the  word  selected  by  the  Greeks  to  denote  the 
Persons.  Hence,  while  one-half  of  the  Empire 
spoke  of  Three  Hypostases,  the  other  half  spoke 
of  One  only.  The  words  were  in  fact  little  more 
than  counters,  used  to  express  whatever  ideas  theo- 
logians stamped  upon  them;  the  ideas  were  Chris- 


292  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

tian,  the  words  were  heathen."      (The  Church's 
Task  under  the  Roman  Empire.) 

Because  Mithraism  prevailed  in  St.  Paul's  na- 
tive city  some  unsympathetic  writers  who  know 
nothing  of  the  subjective  power  of  Christ  in  the 
soul,  dare  to  attempt  to  trace  the  Apostle's  teach- 
ing respecting  the  Eucharist  to  this  heathen  source, 
and  all  this  in  defiance  of  his  own  explicit  testi- 
mony that  he  received  it  from  the  Lord.  On  the 
coins  of  Tarsus  we  see  the  evidence  of  the  cult  of 
Mithraism  plainly  stamped,  but  it  is  inconceivable 
that  Paul  could  have  been  favorably  affected  by  a 
religion  so  abhorrent  to  Judaism,  for  he  grew  up 
as  one  of  the  most  rigid  of  his  sect,  a  Pharisee,  a 
son  of  Pharisees,  and  his  entire  life  shows  his  ab- 
solute freedom  from  such  influence.  His  testi- 
mony is  clear  and  unimpeachable  except  to  the 
rationalizing  critic  who  in  his  desperate  efforts  to 
destroy  the  force  of  the  evidence  must  assert  that 
the  Apostle  was  "the  victim  of  unconscious  cere- 
bration and  took  over  the  pagan  sacramentalism 
without  knowing  it,"  but  as  Dr.  Groton  says  there 
is  no  evidence  for  such  psychological  disturbance, 
and  all  the  efforts  to  disturb  the  validity  of  Paul's 
testimony  are  arbitrary.  The  Apostle  makes  the 
Lord's  Supper  also  a  memorial  of  Christ  until  His 
coming,  and  two  things  could  scarcely  be  "more 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     293 

unlike  than  the  PauHne  and  the  pagan  escha- 
tology." 

With  all  the  varied  differences  of  opinion  as  to 
the  correct  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist,  no  one  ventured  to  impeach  the  histori- 
cal records  themselves  as  being  unauthentic.  It 
was  not  until  the  earlier  portion  of  the  nineteenth 
century  that  any  writer  questioned  the  Christie 
origin  of  this  ordinance,  and  sought  to  trace  it  to 
St.  Paul  who  was  supposed  to  have  largely  bor- 
rowed his  ideas  from  pagan  cults,  and  the  myster- 
ies of  Oriental  religions.  The  science  of  the  com- 
parative study  of  religions  is  not  responsible  for 
this  extreme  form  of  destructive  criticism,  but 
rather  the  abuse  of  the  false  estimate  of  the  super- 
ficial resemblances  discovered  in  the  pagan  "re- 
ligio  historical  parallels,"  and  some  of  them  we 
acknowledge  have  striking  correspondences  or  an- 
alogies to  certain  teachings  and  practices  of  the 
Christian  religion.  Hence  these  new  phases  must 
also  be  reckoned  with  in  a  modern  study  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  for  they  have  an  important  bear- 
ing upon  the  controverted  questions  involved  in 
this  doctrine. 

No  one  acquainted  with  the  results  brought  to 
light  by  eminent  scholars  who  have  devoted  their 
life  to  a  comparative  study  of  religions,  would  de- 


294  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

liberately  Ignore  the  methods  and  conclusions  of 
their  investigations.  I  am  convinced  that  they 
often  shed  important  light  from  the  age  of  St. 
Paul  upon  the  words  that  he  employs  from  Greek 
sources  and  religions  to  express  the  belief  of  Chris- 
tians in  their  own  ordinances,  for  he  naturally  re- 
sorted to  the  current  linguistic  and  figurative  ex- 
pressions as  the  only  ones  available. 

It  is  agreed  by  students  of  the  religious  cults 
that  were  contemporary  with  St,  Paul  that 
there  existed  among  the  various  Greek  Mysteries 
certain  sacramental  ideas  that  bore  a  strong  anal- 
ogy to  his  illustrations  touching  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist.  We  get  a  better  understanding  of  his 
point  of  view,  without  any  loss  to  our  reverent 
faith  in  the  Christian  ordinance,  by  studying  the 
Mysteries  of  Eleusis,  and  that  strange  worship  of 
Mithras,  even  though  It  came  later  than  the  Apos- 
tle. Mithraism  was  for  some  time  the  most  seri- 
ous rival  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  M.  Cumont 
has  made  valuable  contributions  to  this  subject. 
In  two  volumes.  In  his  masterly  address  before 
the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America,  several 
years  ago,  we  were  Irresistibly  drawn  to  some  of 
his  conclusions.  The  Mithraic  Church  had  "a  sort 
of  Affape  In  commemoration  of  the  banquet  of 
Mithra  and  the  Sun,  in  which  the  worshippers  par- 
took of  bread,  water  and  wine."     Prof.  Bigg  ob- 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     295 

serves  the  resemblance  of  Isis  worship  to  Chris- 
tianity, though  chiefly  of  a  verbal  character,  but: 
"In  Mithraism  they  are  more  numerous,  and  more 
than  verbal.  We  find  a  feast  of  the  Nativity,  a 
Sunday,  an  Adoration  of  Shepherds,  a  Baptism,  a 
Last  Supper,  an  Ascension,  an  organization  in 
many  remarkable  points  strangely  parallel  to  that 
of  the  Church.  .  .  .  Cumont  thinks  that  there  was 
a  growing  tendency  to  assimilate  Mithras  to  Jesus. 
Very  probably  he  is  right;  for  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  later  heathenism  freely  appropria- 
ted the  ideas,  the  practices,  the  language  of  the 
Christian  Church.  .  .  .  Mithraism  was  so  like 
Christianity  that  it  no  doubt  helped  to  open  the 
door  for  its  advent;  at  the  same  time  it  was  so  un- 
like that  there  could  be  no  peace  between  the  two. 
It  rested  upon  a  fable.  There  never  was  a  Mithra, 
and  he  never  slew  the  Bull."  The  rapid  spread  of 
this  religion  along  the  Northern  frontier  of  the 
Empire  was  due  to  the  fact  that  its  chief  followers 
were  soldiers  who  also  became  its  missionaries. 
Whilst  Mithraism  is  acknowledged  to  have  been 
the  best  and  most  elevating  of  all  the  heathen  re- 
ligions of  the  Roman  Empire,  it  finally  died  be- 
cause it  was  founded  on  a  fiction  that  had  no  exis- 
tence beyond  the  imagination  of  its  followers. 
Those  who  are  strongly  inclined  to  eliminate  all 
the  supernatural  in  the  Christian  religion  are  eager 


296  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

to  discover  the  origin  of  the  Eucharist  In  the  Eleu- 
sinlan  Mysteries,  and  any  parallelism  in  words  or 
remote  resemblance  in  ceremony  is  eagerly  wel- 
comed and  fashioned  into  the  required  formula. 
But  the  inimitable  Person  of  Christ  is  not  there; 
there  is  no  identity  with  that  sacramental  signifi- 
cance that  is  fundamental,  and  the  differences  of 
origin  and  content  are  irreconcilable.  The  God- 
man  is  nonexistent  in  Mithraism;  its  origin  and 
content  of  ceremonies  are  Mithraic  in  character, 
but  not  Christian. 

It  is  comparison  and  contrast  that  bring  out  the 
real  qualities  and  we  instinctively  employ  this 
method  in  our  daily  observations.  The  compara- 
tive method  is  the  scientific  one  employed  in  study, 
for  we  view  everything  relatively.  We  are  first 
impressed  with  resemblances,  however  superficial 
they  may  be,  for  they  remind  us  of  somebody  or 
something  that  has  certain  points  of  analogy  in 
common,  though  the  differences  may  be  vastly 
greater,  and  these  impress  themselves  upon  us 
later  as  we  proceed  in  our  investigations.  When 
we  begin  to  examine  critically  we  find  that  some 
of  the  apparent  resemblances  vanish,  for  the  dif- 
ferences are  so  fundamental,  that  the  once  seem- 
ing likenesses  in  some  minor  features  bear  no  Im- 
portance to  the  whole.  We  must  endeavor  to  get 
the  view  point  of  the  ancients,  their  meaning  and 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     297 

not  read  our  modern  theory  into  It,  but  inquire  Into 
the  original  purport;  what  did  the  design  or  sym- 
bol or  words  mean  to  the  one  who  used  them,  for 
every  symbol  however  crude  is  the  expression  of 
some  thought.  It  was  Invested  with  some  meaning, 
and  that  Is  what  we  are  to  try  to  discover.  The 
symbol  of  the  Cross  does  not  mean  to  the  Chris- 
tian what  It  meant  to  the  ancients  who  used  the 
symbol  centuries  earlier.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
eagle  that  appears  on  the  American  coinage,  for 
It  conveys  an  entirely  different  meaning  to  us  than 
It  did  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans  when  they  saw 
it  upon  their  coins.  To  us  it  conveys  the  impres- 
sion of  political  freedom,  but  to  the  ancients  they 
beheld  the  symbol  of  their  great  Deity — Zeus  and 
Jupiter. 

With  all  human  Ingenuity  In  reconstructing  the 
pagan  rites,  for  often  the  Imagination  and  specula- 
tion figure  largely,  no  ardent  supporter  of  any 
theory  to  make  them  account  for  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  can  so  fashion  the  Mlthralc 
meal  as  the  progenitor  of  this  central  rite  In  the 
Christian  Church.  Various  theories  have  been 
advocated  by  negative  critics  who  would  deny  the 
Christian  origin,  but  when  these  men.  In  the  face 
of  the  testimony  of  the  most  authoritative  of  his- 
torical criticism,  deny  the  Scriptural  documents,  we 
are  not  obliged  to  reply  to  the  far-fetched  criti- 


298  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

cisms  that  will  pass  away  in  due  time  with  the 
authors  themselves.  The  charge  of  borrowing 
from  the  Mystery  religions  is  impossible,  inas- 
much as  the  Eucharist  was  commonly  observed  in 
the  Christian  Churches  in  the  first  centuries  whilst 
Mithraism  did  not  attain  to  its  full  development 
and  potent  influence  until  the  century  following. 
The  charge  of  borrowing  from  any  of  the  existing 
religions,  merely  because  of  superficial  or  even 
more  striking  resemblances  in  certain  forms,  is  as 
unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  charge  Christian- 
ity with  having  borrowed  the  symbol  of  the  Cross 
from  the  ancients,  or  that  America  copied  its  sym- 
bol of  the  eagle  from  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 
To  us  the  cross  is  a  symbol  of  God's  matchless 
love,  and  man's  redemption  from  the  curse  of  sin, 
and  the  American  eagle  ever  reminds  us  of  our 
freedom,  without  ever  a  thought  of  the  gods  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans. 

In  referring  to  the  cross  on  coins  as  a  symbol 
of  Christianity,  I  am  reminded  that  some  have 
thought  to  discredit  our  faith  and  reverence  for 
the  historic  character  of  this  hallowed  symbol  o£ 
our  holy  religion  by  informing  us  that  the  symbol 
of  the  cross  had  been  borrowed  from  paganism, 
or  a  still  lower  source,  and  "had  been  used  long  be- 
fore Jesus  was  born,"  and  that  the  Christian  tra- 
ditions associated  with  it  in  the  modern  mind  are 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     299 

pagan  In  origin.  But  there  Is  nothing  in  such 
reasoning  to  detract  from  the  Christian  signifi- 
cance of  the  cross,  even  though  some  ancient  coins 
may  have  borne  a  geometrical  form  of  it,  or  that 
thousands  of  human  beings  had  been  crucified  upon 
the  cross  long  before  the  advent  of  Christianity, 
or  that  there  is  nothing  new  in  its  form — all  true 
enough,  for  the  Southern  Cross  Is  as  old  as  Crea- 
tion; and  when  I  looked  upon  that  studded,  star- 
lit cross  in  the  celestial  dome,  our  own  cross  did 
not  lose  its  special  significance.  As  well  say  that 
the  Christian  cross  is  only  the  modern  develop- 
ment of  the  earlier  conception  of  the  multitudinous 
forms  of  the  cross  seen  In  the  masts  and  spars  and 
rigging  of  the  ship:  in  the  stems  and  branches  of 
trees  and  plants;  and  in  the  letter  T,  and  in  the 
orans,  or  man  himself  as  he  stands  with  out- 
stretched arms  in  adoration  of  Deity.  Christ  in- 
vested the  Cross  with  a  new  meaning,  and  such  as 
the  ancients  never  conceived  of. 

The  significant  place  of  the  cross  in  the  thought 
and  life  of  the  Christians  was  no  secret  among 
rulers  and  ruled,  long  before  it  appeared  upon  the 
military  banners  and  on  the  coinage  of  the  empire, 
for  they  beheld  in  the  cross  the  symbol,  if  not  the 
personification  of  Him  who  suffered  for  us  on  Cal- 
vary. With  this  clearly  defined  conception.  It  has 
become  such  a  sacred  symbol  through  the  centu- 


300  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

ries,  not  merely  because  of  its  inherited  associa- 
tions, but  because  of  its  inseparable  meaning  as 
symbolizing  Him  whom  we  instinctively  associate 
with  it  in  our  deepest  religious  convictions.  I  am 
not  confounding  mere  symbol  with  reality,  for 
there  is  an  important  distinction,  and  the  disregard 
of  it  is  seen  in  the  fetishism  of  many  religions. 
And  yet,  the  two  are  often  most  intimately  asso- 
ciated in  our  minds,  for  the  patriot  would  resent 
the  insult  of  seeing  his  country's  flag  stamped  into 
the  mire,  and  the  Christian  would  not  be  indiffer- 
ent if  he  saw  the  cross  trambled  under-foot  and 
spat  upon.  Hence  many  of  the  Christian  converts 
in  Japan  during  the  seventeenth  century  suffered 
death  rather  than  save  their  lives  by  trampling 
upon  the  cross  that  was  laid  on  the  ground  in  the 
narrow  entrance  of  the  gateway  through  which  all 
had  to  pass  in  order  to  detect  their  secret  faith,  for 
the  genuine  convert  revered  that  symbol  of  his 
divine  Master,  and  in  the  museum  at  Ueno,  To- 
kyo, we  may  still  see  some  of  these  memorable 
yellow  copperplates  on  which  the  Crucifixion  of 
our  Lord  is  represented  in  relief,  significant  monu- 
ments of  the  bitter  struggle  of  Christianity  in  the 
Orient. 

To  deny  the  original  Christian  conception  of 
this  meaning  and  use  of  the  cross  as  a  symbol  of 
Christianity,  merely  because  the  form  antedates 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     301 

the  advent  of  Christ,  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  would 
be  for  an  Oriental  to  declare  that  the  presence  of 
the  eagle  on  our  American  coinage  is  unmistakable 
proof  of  the  Greek  origin  of  our  country  and  the 
pagan  character  of  our  national  religion,  inasmuch 
as  that  bird  was  the  symbol  of  Zeus. 

Suppose  an  Oriental  coming  to  my  own  city  of 
Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  should  display  a  didrachm  of 
Acragas  issued  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury B.C.,  stamped  with  this  same  familiar  eagle, 
and  still  another  coin  of  a  somewhat  later  date, 
that  issued  from  the  mint  of  our  own  namesake 
city  of  ancient  Syracuse,  bearing  the  same  bird, 
and  similar  to  the  well-known  eagle  that  adorns 
our  coinage,  would  he  be  justified  in  pointing  to 
that  ancient  symbol  of  Zeus,  and  then  declare  that 
it  was  a  monumental  proof  that  our  religion  was 
the  same  as  that  old  cult,  for  the  same  symbol 
was  used  that  appeared  on  the  ancient  Greek 
coins?  We  would  reply  that  it  was  a  very  differ- 
ent eagle,  though  similar  in  form,  for  we  see  in  the 
eagle  that  loves  freedom  the  symbol  of  our  Ameri- 
can Independence.  In  other  words,  we  have  in- 
vested it  with  an  entirely  new  and  different  mean- 
ing, and  the  same  is  true  of  the  cross  when  appro- 
priated by  Christianity.  It  is  an  altogether  differ- 
ent cross,  and  so  the  Christians  understood  it  as 
they  saw  it  with  joy  upon  their  national  coinage : 


302  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Suppler 

hence  it  is  the  richest  and  most  precious  of  all  sym- 
bols because  it  is  the  symbol  of  God's  love,  and 
man's  hope. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  Apostle  Paul 
mentions  the  parallel  that  he  recognized  between 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  pagan  feasts  that  he 
had  seen  in  the  temples.  Later  the  Church  Fathers 
denounced  the  heathen  for  imitating  their  ordi- 
nances, and  Justin  Martyr  bitterly  charged  them 
with  having  imitated  the  rites  of  Christianity  so  as 
to  attract  the  people.  He  refers  according  to  Gro- 
ton  to  that  later  period  when  Christianity  was 
"very  susceptible  to  the  influences  of  current 
thought  and  philosophy.  May  not  the  infiltration 
of  the  environment  have  commenced  at  an  earlier 
stage  than  Hatch  supposed,  and  may  not  the  sac- 
ramentarianism  of  St.  Paul  be  one  of  its  products? 
There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  the  probability 
that  this  was  actually  the  case." 

But  even  though  it  can  be  shown  that  tTie  ex- 
treme form  of  the  Apostle's  sacramental  ideas 
came  from  foreign  sources  that  would  not  neces- 
sarily invalidate  his  authority,  for  as  Dr.  Ander- 
son states:  "The  origin  of  an  idea  is  no  criterion 
as  to  its  worth.  Many  of  the  categories  which 
were  used  for  the  interpretation  of  Christianity  in 
the  later  creeds  were  borrowed  from  Greek  philos- 
ophy, but  that  does  not  in  itself  prove  that  the  in- 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     303 

terpretation  is  unsound.  The  fact  that  Paul  bor- 
rowed from  the  Greek  Mysteries  for  the  construc- 
tion which  he  put  upon  the  Christian  sacraments 
is  by  no  means  fatal  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrines." 
Just  as  when  Jesus  foretold  His  resurrection  its 
real  character  was  not  affected  by  comparing  it 
with  Jonah's  being  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  belly  of  the  whale — should  that  story  be 
proved  to  be  without  historical  foundation  as  a 
literal  occurrence,  but  was  given  merely  as  a  par- 
able to  teach  an  important  truth  of  God's  wonder- 
ful mercy  as  contrasted  with  the  mean  selfishness 
of  man.  Inasmuch  as  God  has  ever  been  the  same 
loving  Heavenly  Father  of  all  humanity,  desiring 
the  salvation  of  all,  we  cannot  hesitate  to  believe 
that  he  made  use  of  the  best  of  all  instrumentali- 
ties to  prepare  mankind  for  the  coming  of  Christ 
with  His  message  of  the  Gospel, — the  good  news 
from  God. 

Robinson  states  that:  "the  Corinthian  Eucha- 
rist had  parallels  on  its  social  side  In  the  Greek 
world.  Guilds  and  burial  clubs  had  their  stated 
suppers;  and  the  wealthier  townsmen  found  many 
occasions  of  inviting  their  poorer  neighbors  to  a 
feast,  as,  for  example,  at  time  of  funerals,  and  on 
fixed  days  after  the  death.  From  such  public  en- 
tertainments Christians  were  debarred  by  reason 
of  their  connection  with  Idolatrous  worship;  but 


304  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

it  is  likely  that  the  Christians  themselves  in  a 
Greek  city  would  have  similar  suppers  on  some- 
what similar  occasions;  and  the  wealthier  members 
of  the  Church  would  thus  entertain  the  poorer 
from  time  to  time.  Such  Suppers,  though  not  Eu- 
charlstic  in  the  strict  sense,  would  be  accompanied 
by  eucharlstic  rites."  "Hence  would  appear  to 
have  originated  the  Agapae,  or  charity  suppers, 
which  are  not  always  distinguishable  from  Eucha- 
rists. They  are  referred  to  in  Jude  12  (II  Peter 
2:13),  and  some  light  is  thrown  upon  the  refer- 
ence by  the  custom,  mentioned  in  the  DIdache 
(chap.  II),  of  allowing  the  prophets  'to  order  a 
table, — a  custom  sometimes  misused  for  selfish 
ends.'  " 

For  some  years  I  have  been  deeply  interested  in 
the  study  of  man's  relation  to  Deity  as  seen  in  the 
history  of  religions,  for  man  is  a  religious  being, 
and  no  race  nor  people  have  ever  been  discovered 
without  faith  in  some  deity,  and  hence  he  is  in- 
separable from  worship  of  some  form.  No  man 
has  made  such  a  thorough  and  extensive  investi- 
gation of  religion  and  magic  among  modern  and 
past  peoples  of  the  pagan  world  as  Dr.  J.  G. 
Frazer.  His  volumes  are  a  storehouse  of  valu- 
able information  for  the  thoughtful  and  trained 
mind,  that  has  learned  to  study  results  relatively, 
for  they  are  rich  in  suggestions  and  shed  light  upon 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     305 

many  dark  problems.  In  Part  V,  Vol.  II  of  the 
Golden  Bough,  Dr.  Frazer  devotes  Chap.  X  to: 
"Eating  the  God,  the  Sacrament  of  first-Fruits." 
He  concludes:  "We  have  now  seen  that  the  corn- 
Spirit  is  represented  sometimes  in  human,  some- 
times in  animal  form,  and  that  in  both  cases  he  is 
killed  in  the  person  of  his  representative  and  eaten 
sacramentally.  To  find  examples  of  actually  kill- 
ing the  human  representative  of  the  corn-Spirit 
we  had  naturally  to  go  to  savage  races."  He  gives 
a  long  description  of  eating  the  God  among  the 
Astecs,  "the  custom  of  eating  sacramentally  a 
dough  image  of  the  god — as  a  mode  of  commun- 
ion with  the  deity.  .  .  .  They  called  these  morsels 
the  flesh  and  bones  of  Vitziliputzli.  They  hon- 
ored those  pieces  in  the  same  sort  as  their  god." 
There  were  elaborate  preparations  and  ceremonies 
and  when  ended  "the  priests  and  superiors  of  the 
temple  took  the  idol  of  paste  and  made  many 
pieces — which  they  consecrated,  and  gave  to  the 
people  in  manner  of  a  communion, — who  received 
it  with  such  tears,  fear,  and  reverence  as  it  was  an 
admirable  thing,  saying  that  they  did  eat  the  flesh 
and  bones  of  God,  wherewith  they  were  grieved. 
Such  as  had  any  sick  folks  demanded  thereof  for 
them,  and  carried  it  with  great  reverence  and 
veneration."  He  quotes  it  from  a  work  on  the 
Indies.     "From  this  interesting  passage  we  learn 


3o6  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

that  the  ancient  Mexicans  before  the  arrival  of 
Christian  missionaries,  were  fully  acquainted  with 
the  theological  doctrine  of  transiibstantiation  and 
acted  upon  it  in  the  solemn  rites  of  their  religion. 
They  believed  that  by  consecrating  bread  their 
priests  could  turn  it  into  the  very  body  of  their 
god,  so  that  all  who  thereupon  partook  of  the 
consecrated  bread  entered  into  a  mystic  commun- 
ion with  the  deity  by  receiving  a  portion  of  his 
divine  substance  Into  themselves.  The  doctrine  of 
transubstantiatlon,  or  the  magical  conversion  of 
bread  Into  flesh,  was  also  familiar  to  the  Aryans 
of  ancient  India  long  before  the  spread  and  even 
rise  of  Christianity,  The  Brahmans  taught  that 
the  rice-cakes  offered  in  sacrifice  were  substitutes 
for  human  beings,  and  that  they  were  actually 
converted  into  the  real  bodies  of  men  by  the  man- 
ipulation of  the  priest.  .  .  .  On  the  whole  It  would 
seem  that  neither  the  ancient  Hindoos  nor  the  an- 
cient Mexicans  had  much  to  learn  from  the  most 
refined  mysteries  of  Catholic  theology."  He  de- 
scribes the  "Astec  custom  of  killing  the  god  Huit- 
zllopochtli  In  effigy  and  eating  him  afterwards." 
Whilst  even  the  male  child  In  the  cradle  received 
a  portion  It  was  denied  to  every  female.  The 
name  of  the  ceremony  was  very  significant,  being 
called  teoqualo,  I.e.,  "god  Is  eaten." 

In  order  to  satisfy  their  craving  after  a  closer 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     307 

union  with  the  living  god,  the  ancient  Mexicans  re- 
sorted to  a  more  real  communion  by  sacrificing  a 
beautiful  captive  of  noble  birth  after  they  had 
him  impersonate  for  some  time  the  god  Tetzcat- 
lipoca,  and  then  the  body  of  this  sacrificed  god  was 
chopped  into  small  portions  and  distributed  among 
the  priests  and  nobles  as  a  blessed  food.  "The 
custom  of  entering  into  communion  with  a  god  by 
eating  of  his  effigy  survived  till  lately  among  the 
Huichal  Indians  of  Mexico."  Communion  with 
the  deity  still  exists  in  various  forms  of  observ- 
ance among  different  low  castes  in  Southern  India. 
When  they  swallow  the  piece  of  the  image  they 
have  broken  they  firmly  believe  that  they  absorb 
the  essence  of  the  deity  whose  broken  body  they 
have  received.  We  need  the  caution  from  Frazer 
In  summing  up  the  results  of  his  extensive  studies: 
"We  cannot  dissect  the  history  of  mankind  as 
it  were  with  a  knife  into  a  series  of  neat  sections 
each  sharply  marked  off  from  all  the  rest  by  a  tex- 
ture and  a  color  of  its  own,  for — the  textures  in- 
terlace, the  colors  melt  and  run  into  each  other 
by  Insensible  gradations.  It  is  a  mere  truism  to 
say  that  the  abstract  generalizations  of  science 
can  never  adequately  comprehend  all  the  particu- 
lars of  concrete  reality.  The  facts  of  nature  will 
always  burst  the  narrow  bounds  of  human  theo- 
ries." 


3o8  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

The  belief  and  practice  of  communion  with 
deity  was  quite  common  among  the  ancient  re- 
ligions, and  the  subject  is  involved  in  much  mys- 
tery, although  certain  facts  are  generally  admitted 
as  well  established.  The  communion  with  deity 
as  it  existed  among  the  *jreeks  and  Romans  is  the 
only  phase  that  directly  applies  in  any  way  to  our 
study  because  of  the  contact  of  those  peoples  with 
early  Christianity,  and  they  furnished  by  far  the 
major  portion  of  the  converts.  Dr.  Duff  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics  sounds  the 
caution  that  "In  some  ceremonies  at  the  altar  the 
difficulty  is  to  decide  whether  any  clear  sacramen- 
tal conception  was  involved.  .  .  .  In  a  less  mystic 
sense  the  term  sacrament  or  communion  might 
be  applied  to  the  feast  shared  by  deity  and  wor- 
shippers which  is  familiar  from  the  earliest  Greek 
literature."  Whilst  such  sacrificial  communion 
prevailed  in  Greece,  its  persistence  was  rather  spo- 
radic apart  from  the  Mysteries,  and  the  leading 
authorities  "doubt  whether  the  ritual  and  doc- 
trine of  communion  exercised  a  vital  influence  upon 
religious  thought  in  the  older  Hellenism."  Ill, 
768.  It  is  claimed  that  the  indications  are  that  a 
sacramental  communion  existed  also  In  the  com- 
mon sacrificial  feasts  in  the  early  religion  of  the 
Romans  "for  the  purpose  of  uniting  a  deity  more 
closely  with  his  worshippers." 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     309 

In  reference  to  the  sacrificial  meal  Fairbanks 
says:  "In  almost  every  form  of  primitive  religion, 
the  communion  meal  in  which  gods  and  men  share 
consecrated  food,  and  the  use  of  blood  to  pacify 
angry  deities  or  to  remove  some  taint  from  man, 
constitute  a  large  part  of  worship."  Greek  Re- 
ligions, 98.  "The  communion  meal,  the  meat  of- 
fering of  our  Old  Testament,  is  the  appropriate 
offering  to  the  Olympian  gods.  ...  In  prepara- 
tion for  the  communion  meal,  it  was  necessary 
first  to  select  a  suitable  animal — a  perfect  speci- 
men of  its  kind.  At  some  shrines  the  sex,  age,  and 
the  color  of  the  victim  were  determined  in  the 
ritual.  .  .  .  Occasionally  poor  people  offered 
cakes  in  the  shape  of  animals,  or  fruit  fixed  to  imi- 
tate animals."  In  later  times  they  had  libations 
of  mixed  wine  and  water  at  the  sacrificial  banquet. 

Too  often  superficial  resemblances  have  been 
exaggerated  into  analogies.  Some  have  drawn 
heavily  upon  their  imagination  to  discover  in  the 
ceremonies  of  the  Eleusinian  mysteries  the  origin 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  There  is  an  inspiration 
for  the  student  of  history  In  surveying  the  exten- 
sive ruins  at  Eleusis,  and  I  found  no  difficulty  in 
reproducing  possible  scenes  that  may  have  been 
witnessed  here  many  centuries  ago  at  the  festivals 
given  in  commemoration  of  the  goddess  Demeter. 
In  the  attending  feast  of  eating  and  drinking  an 


310  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

imaginative  observer  with  an  ardent  desire  to  dis- 
cover something  in  the  ritual  favorable  to  his  fa- 
vorite theory,  might  discover  not  only  the  place 
and  ritual  of  the  sacramental  meal,  but  also  the  re- 
markable features  of  striking  identity  with  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  there  is  no 
critical  historical  value  in  such  a  discovery,  for  it 
lacks  the  essential-crucial  test  of  evidence,  and  on 
this  subject  Farnell,  speaking  with  the  highest  au- 
thority in  his  exhaustive  work,  says:  "If  we  keep 
strictly  to  the  evidence,  as  we  ought  in  such  a  case, 
we  have  no  right  to  speak  of  a  sacramental  meal 
at  Eleusis,  to  which,  as  around  a  communion  table, 
the  worshippers  gathered,  strengthening  their  mu- 
tual sense  of  religious  fellowship  thereby.  .  .  . 
We  have  no  proof  here  of  a  sacramental  common 
meal,  although  it  is  probable  that  the  votary  felt 
in  drinking  it  a  certain  fellowship  with  the  deity, 
who  by  the  story  had  drunk  it  before  him."  Cults 
of  the  Greek  States.     Ill,  196. 

Farnell's  extensive  researches  in  5  vols,  show 
no  recognition  of  the  idea  of  sacramental  com- 
munion at  Eleusis,  and  Dr.  Jevons's  theory  col- 
lapses for  want  of  evidence,  for  "whatever  the 
mystic  sacrifice  may  have  been,  he  (Dr.  Jevons) 
lays  a  great  deal  more  stress  upon  it  than  the 
Greeks  themselves  did.  .  .  .  There  is  no  text  or 
context  which  proves  that  the  Initiated  at  Eleusis 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     311 

was  regarded  as  of  one  flesh  with  deity."  Ill,  p. 
196.  In  his  work  on  Greece  and  Babylon  he 
warns  men  against  drawing  hasty  conclusions  of 
borrowing  because  of  certain  resemblances:  "For 
often  in  comparing  the  most  remote  regions  of  the 
world  we  are  struck  with  strange  similarities  of 
myth  and  cult,  .  .  .  Many  superficial  points  of 
resemblance  will  be  found  in  all  religions  that  are 
at  the  same  stage  of  development."  p.  37. 

We  frequently  discover  concurrent  streams  of 
religious  thought  rising  from  different  sources,  but 
with  such  striking  parallelism  as  to  suggest  if  not 
a  common  origin  or  direct  borrowing,  at  least  a 
contribution  of  influence  due  to  personal  contact 
with  followers  of  other  religions.  Just  as  Israel 
was  influenced  by  other  Semitic  nations,  especially 
by  the  Canaanites,  for  the  stream  of  religion  has 
not  always  continued  pure  as  when  it  left  the  orig- 
inal source,  but  in  time  foreign  tributaries  added 
their  contribution  and  the  character  was  changed. 
This  was  illustrated  in  certain  directions  by  the 
pagan  influences  that  entered  and  corrupted  the 
Church  to  a  deplorable  extent  with  Its  heretical  in- 
filtrations during  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  al- 
though the  fundamental  doctrines  were  not 
changed,  but  pagan  customs  became  engrafted  in 
the  ecclesiastical  ceremonies — so  different  from 
the  simplicity  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 


312  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

But  it  would  be  a  violent  perversion  of  rational 
criticism  to  contend  that  Christianity  imitated  and 
borrowed  her  cardinal  doctrines  and  sacred  rites 
from  other  religions  just  because  she  was  obliged 
to  obtain  part  of  her  Christian  vocabulary  from 
the  nomenclature  of  a  contemporary  or  earlier 
paganism.  The  material  form  may  have  been  imi- 
tated, but  into  that  pagan  form  was  introduced  the 
content  of  a  new  and  fundamental  Christian 
truth;  just  as  we  have  taken  over  the  form  of  the 
Shepherd  carrying  the  sheep,  but  as  translated  into 
Christ  as  the  Good  Shepherd  that  transformed 
symbol  has  a  very  different  and  precious  signifi- 
cance to  us.  It  is  the  God-man  who  bore  the  bur- 
den of  our  sins  on  the  cross,  and  who  invites  all 
the  sorrowing  and  heavy  burdened  ones  of  earth 
to  come  to  Him  for  rest,  and  to  cast  all  their  cares 
upon  Him  because  He  is  concerned  for  them. 

The  common  elements  of  bread  and  wine  have 
not  been  restricted  to  sacramental  meals,  but  have 
had  an  almost  universal  use  as  a  daily  food  and 
drink  in  Eastern  countries,  and  have  been  adapted 
to  special  use,  as  when  men  pledged  their  faith  to 
one  another  by  eating  and  drinking — a  practice 
traced  to  primitive  times,  and  practiced  to-day  by 
some  in  ceremonies  as  a  pledge  of  brotherhood. 
But  there  is  no  confusion  among  them  in  confound- 
ing this  ceremony  with  that  of  the  Eucharist,  for 


Side  Lights  from  Comparative  Religions     313 

all  would  deny  the  very  thought  of  imitation  or 
parallelism  between  them,  both  as  to  content  and 
purpose.  The  incomparable  difference  is  funda- 
mental, for  in  the  one  there  is  but  bread  and  wine 
with  pledge  of  brotherhood  and  nothing  more,  but 
in  the  sacramental  Bread  and  Wine  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  there  is  likewise 
the  real  Presence  of  Christ  the  God-man,  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world  Who  communes  with  us  and  we 
with  Him  Who  nourishes  our  soul  unto  eternal 
life. 

So  far  then  as  the  Holy  Eucharist  or  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  concerned  there  need  be 
no  misunderstanding  nor  doubt  as  to  its  divine 
origin  and  character,  for  we  have  the  early  his- 
torical documents  of  the  Synoptist  Gospels  that 
record  the  unquestioned  account,  and  the  Apostle 
St.  Paul  bears  his  testimony  to  the  same  historic 
fact  when  in  positive  language  he  declares  its 
sacred  content  and  the  source  from  which  he  ob- 
tained his  information:  "The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?"  "For  I  re- 
ceived of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered 
unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in 
which  He  was  betrayed  took  bread;  and  when  He 
had  given  thanks,  He  brake  it,  and  said,  This  is 


314  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper 

my  body,  which  is  for  you :  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  In  Hke  manner  also  the  cup,  after 
supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in 
my  blood:  this  do  as  often  as  ye  drink  it,  in  re- 
membrance of  me." 


Date  Due 

N  4 .  '4 

i 

1 

-     '   , 

r 

f) 

